










































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































•s- 







v v 

' * * s *' 1 »* 



iV . ^ N 

<* o 

, K. 0 ’ ^0- 



u> \' , 

<■ s 

U r <?' a\> * 

/ ' /> 

* * - 1 #V ^ -v ' ^ % 

'**^/';,nV ,m >v*.:v;V 

? Jf({!;■'/?*> + a's <s ' v r5&. ■>■ 

'"“o' A v- f w 

* Vvis* = x 0 *?,. 

0 c, \w,» / „ . 

s * * y> 9~ y * o r **£> \ V v s s « « , / " p. N ^ ^ Y * 0 f 

A® ^ «.55 * V. . ' ' ObO^bJ' - A V t- -*■ * 
<* v . \/K‘ ■ %> x \X’ * <A 

_* ** v ^ : vl|jipi ,. j|^ .. .,,_ 

^ t 0 * C * ^C ' ** ' >" «« 1 ' * < '<t " " " c • N ‘ « \ '‘ * * ' ' 

*- / »'«»*■: w ?$*4r: > ^ f'llllu w 

'TG 

yv- ^c. 

r o ^ * 

* *f> v x 




c 



s 

gt- y "''^'X'^ 3 ~* «r 

•e- « , s o' j? O, 

> ^ t<*«, *£. 



* ^ 


' - c \0o. * ;,,":^^|5 * J 

v ^ ^ ^ % r x - xV 

■ ■> * ^ s . 
v c S J 

aT> r <? sx ' J -p s 

° r * 4^ * 

$ ^ 




O \° 

■ V 


/ y '\ -» , . _ 

* >C3 O -X rjs S x o' 1 '*’ -a 

' 0,1 \' "'•*'' ^ G t.»,c '"•’ 

>' •" ^ ^ °0 0° *'* 

'sc-' » mtVmQfr " ' ! ‘ J - 


.0 





‘ „A T*^ 






^ ^ ' * ,Vo >* a0-' 

v > A c .' * 


o 0 

■“'a > A 

V *^*1” ^ ^ ; ^i|: %V . 

c,>-^ 7 V'l'V ■ v^ ^ ; 

. & •? -.i, a ’B.' * «S a>> -a ■ O, . 

J ^ k ' ■> t, * s s y o » v ^ .A O*. 

^' ° c - 7 o \y <.' 1 fl * V o n c ^ 7 

0 ^V S ^/y?V-r, 1 *P V ^ 

-,-- . ,_„ . * 'Szf 

4 , r * LJ ^ * 

-Ci- ^ 

- tx _^>. ' 

' '<• -X a 

° '<p <$ 



,s oo' 


* X 

x° 

> ' * ^ 



^ Z 

♦ V- w» 

N v 

* * ' s 4° vis C 7 " ’ v ^ \ V 

3 v - i <p ,-T a c 

y 




*A 

*{> 


> ^ 

t? ^ o 

^ . "*'Sjr' W 3 ' -^> V, ‘ 

^ 0‘ v’ V % 

. j oo' ! ; 

3 ^ -u * 





,0 r ^ v * o 0 ’ ' v v s s 0 1 7 

.v'o ^<3 5.*.^ V 


c^v ^ ^ 


^ 41 .0 

K 0 < 

0 ' 

* 

a0 










w 



* a- % ^T^Ts' .&* X '*o 


•t ^ 

* ctf 
\° ®< 

• • • ..S'-Tsy.,. .x* ^y'. ■ ■ ,>-'* 

yl'O <2 t* <* V ' rv — 7 






0 ^ * A X ' X t 0 N c . r 

V* * rS^T. <* 3 

i A' * %, “ r 

A v a 



AV ' 
\'V o 




•v 




,; o0 x 


& y % r» 

*>r. _a\ 

+*- $ 

_ * Wjr * ^ ^ - * * <Z/fiW C ^ 

°o *♦/,,.* ^ ^ '* , . o’* -o° °c *-* K S **’ v * 

'*«, *o ' \> s- '* > 0M \o v ^* 0 / *6 81 \> 

£2».v " j&m*!.'' ^ A v ^.W’v 






V' * "> 


7- i£3 * * 






























# 



























































Postmillennialism 


AND THE 


Higher Critics 

BY 

The Eminent Evangelists and 

Authors 

ANDREW JOHNSON 

♦ % 

Author of “Twelve Striking’ Sermons,” “My 
Old Kentucky Teacher,” “The Trial 
of John Barleycorn,” Etc. 

AND 

L. L. PICKETT 

Noted hymn writer and author of “The Book 
and Its Theme,” “Bible Fruit,” “Leaves 
From the Tree of Life,” “The Blessed 
Hope of His Glorious Appearing,” 
“The Renewed Earth,” “The Millen¬ 
nium and Related Events,” Etc. 



GLAD TIDINGS PUBLISHING CO., 
207 S. Wabash Avenue, 

CHICAGO, ILL 




—DEDICATED— 


To all who look for and love His glori¬ 
ous personal and premillennial appearing 
(Titus 2:13; 2 Tim. 4: 8). 


Copyright 1923 
Clad Tidings Publishing Co. 


NOV -5 *23 


©Cl A?6517 5 




TABLE OF CONTENTS 


Chapter Page 

Foreword . 7 

I. The Son of Man . 11 

II. Notes On Snowden . 2 7 

III. Rail Reviewed and Refuted. 52 

IV. Professor Rail’s Teaching . 80 

V. Geo. P. Mains’ Book, “Premillen- 

nialism” . 12 1 

VI. Apocalypticism . 139 

VII. The Return of the Redeemer .... 173 

VIII. Benj. Field’s Handbook of The¬ 
ology . 203 

IX. The Appeal to History . 237 

X. The Second Coming of Christ .... 262 

XI. The Kingdom of God . 2 77 

XII. Where Postmillennialism Utterly 

Fails .-.. 319 

XIII. A Review Article . 338 

XIV. Conditions in Methodism . 350 

XV. The Second Coining of Christ .... 362 

XVI. He Came Again: Notes on Goff ..388 

XVII. Pointed Paragraphs on Postmillen¬ 
nialism . 417 


v 




















FOREWORD. 

We have no apology to offer for the fact 
that this hook is polemical and controversial. 
The Bible itself is controversial. Church his¬ 
tory is full of polemics. Paul disputed daily 
in the school of one Tyrannus by the space 
of two years. This was a long-drawn-out de¬ 
bate. We should not hold our peace when 
enemies have slipped into the fold and are 
perverting the truths of the Book. Already 
the faith of many is destroyed. We feel it is 
high time to “cry aloud and spare not”. He 
who is informed and yet unconcerned is a 
traitor. We will not stand idly by and see the 
truth perverted, the faith of the innocent 
wrecked and souls side tracked from the paths 
of life without at least lifting our voices in 
warning and protest. We believe in the in¬ 
spiration, genuineness, authenticity, infallibil¬ 
ity, credibility and authority of the Holy Script¬ 
ures; the Virgin birth, the essential deity and 
the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. We 
have no use for a Darwinian monkey-to-man 
evolution, nor for a two-Isaiah, no-Daniel 
Bible—a book that merely represents a ser¬ 
ies of human dreams of a moral character 
or trend. We must accept the book as a li¬ 
brary of moral, spiritual, soul-saving truths, 
else reject it as a fake, pure and simple, a 

•* 

VII 


volume of folk-lore unworthy the credence 
of sane minds and serious souls. 

We believe that the so-called '‘higher”, 
rationalistic criticism, when reduced to its fi¬ 
nal analysis, is born of carnal nature and self¬ 
ish unbelief. The critical spirit is postmillen- 
nial in all its trend and teaching. 

The Psalmist once asked the question, why 
do the heathen rage? We are confronted to¬ 
day in the Christian world with a regular Gog 
and Magog conspiracy. The ecclesiastical 
high brows and higher critics have united their 
forces, intellectual and official, in order to ban¬ 
ish premillcnnialism from the pales of the visi¬ 
ble Church. Young men seeking Minister¬ 
ial orders and pastorates are promptly inform¬ 
ed that there is no place for them unless they 
abandon their premillennial faith. These ec¬ 
clesiastics out-czar the Romanoffs. They have 
revived the Mediaeval spirit of intolerance. 
These high authorities are “set” and deter¬ 
mined to destroy the faith. They are becom¬ 
ing the “heresay hunters” of our time. They 
need some wise Gamaliel to arise among them 
and advise them to refrain from “punishing” 

the premillennial ministers in their churches. 
For if this doctrine of the personal, premillen¬ 
nial Parousia be of God they cannot over¬ 
throw it. 

%* , 

• •• 
via 


V. 


In our discussion of this subject we have 
naturally and neccssarially been plain, but not 
abusive. We have treated our honorable op¬ 
ponents with all fairness, courtesy and respect. 
We have not misrepresented them in the least. 
We have not given “garbled” extracts but full 
and exact quotations from their various pro¬ 
ductions. 

We are optimistic, Arminian premillennial- 
ists. We utterly reject the idea that pure premil- 
lennialism is pessimistic. It is the biblical basis 
for the only true optimism in the universe. 
The news of the approach of Blucher at the 
battle of Waterloo was not a pessimistic mes¬ 
sage to Wellington. Neither is the announce¬ 
ment of reinforcements from the sky in the 
person of Jesus and his royal retinue a pessi¬ 
mistic message to the militant church. 

We, jointly or separately, would be glad to 
meet any living author of the writings we have 
herein examined; also any bishop, editor, col¬ 
lege professor, district Supt. or representative 
man in joint public debate on tills question. 
We here and now issue a challenge to any and 
all opponents who come within the limits we 
have indicated to such joint debate. Truth 
has nothing to fear. Turn on the light. Let 
the people hear both sides of the question. If 
our opponents are game and feel they have 
the truth on their side they ought to be willing 

t 

IX 


to defend their teachings in the open forum 
of public debate. 

Let us contend earnestly for the faith once 
for all, delivered to the saints. 

We send this Volume forth, under the pro¬ 
vidential protection of Almighty God, for the 
vindication of truth, the refutation of error, 
the enlightment of honest seekers and the ed¬ 
ification of Christians. 

L. L. PICKETT. 

ANDREW JOHNSON. 


s 


CHAPTER I. 

THE SON OF MAN 

We have noticed that many writers who 
oppose the doctrine of the premillennial com¬ 
ing of our Lord, make use of the title “Christ/' 
instead of “Jesus" or “Son of Man." For 
example, Mains in his book, “Premillennial- 
ism," says, “The literature of the apostolic age 
vividly reflects a general expectation of Christ’s 
early return to the world." “The prevalent 
view of the early church was that Christ would 
soon return in glorious power to the earth." 
In like manner Goff, Eckman, Warren, 
Snowden and others speak of the “time of 
Christ’s second coming." Indeed, opponents 
of premillennialism with almost a practical 
unanimity use the word “Christ" in their dis¬ 
cussion of our Lord’s return. This is hardly 
scriptural, nor is it exact; it sho.vs no discrimi¬ 
nation. Why do I say this? Because our Lord 
possesses a dual nature. He is really and truly 
a man. He is absolutely and essentially God, 
the God-Man. The term “Christ" most com¬ 
monly has reference to His deity; whereas, 
“Jesus" and “Son of man" are titles that refer 
especially to His humanity. 

“Jesus" is the personal name of our Lord, 
whereas “Christ," or perhaps better, “the 
Christ," is an official title. In a brief survey 


12 Postmillenni-ilism and The Higher Critics 

Gf the Synoptic Gospels i counted nineteen 
verses where He spoke of His return as per¬ 
sonal, human and visible. He uses such titles 
as “your Lord” and “Son of Man,” never “the 
Son of God” or “Christ,” when referring to 
His second coming. 

Only twice in the New Testament do I re¬ 
call His return a3 spoken of under the term 
*‘Christ” (Col. 3:4 and Heb. 9:27), and in 
both instances this was because of the setting 
or connection. “When Christ who is our life 
shall appear,” etc, We draw spiritual life, not 
out of the human, but from the divine, hence 
“When Christ our life shall appear, then shall 
ye also appear with Him in glory.” In Godhead 
He is our life, But He, our life in deity, is our 
coming King in visible human appearing. 

“To them that look for Him shall He appear 
the second time without sin” (a sin offering) ; 
bringing no sacrificial offering for the sins of 
men, but in kingly display of majesty. His 
divine title, “Christ,” is here used. But com¬ 
monly the coming is portrayed as that of “the 
Son of man,” and is described as personal, vis¬ 
ible, and glorious. At this the Jews, like recent 
enemies of premillennialism, raged. But they 
could not change the record. If the two words, 
“Jesus Christ,” are used together, they bring 
out His dual nature, thus representing Him as 
both God and man. 

We read in Ephesians (3:17), “that Christ 


The Son Of Man 


13 


may dwell in your hearts by faith.” Paul does 
not say that “Jesus” may dwell in your heart, 
or that the “Son of man” may abide therein; 
that would be impossible, but the divine nature 
may take up royal residence in a lowly heart. 

Jesus was first a babe, born of Mary; He 
grew to manhood and, as a carpenter, did the 
work of a man; as a man, He was tempted of 
the Devi); He became hungry and tired; He 
toiled and suffered; He was crucified, died and 
was buried; He arose again, ascended visibly 
fa to the heavens, where He is seated, n$ a man, 
at the right hand of God the Father, 

The title "Jesu3,” 1 believe, is never applied 
singly to our Lord's deity, but always to His 
humanity, “Christ/* on ths other hand, is 
some times, but seldom, applied to His human¬ 
ity, and then only when His deity is also in¬ 
volved. Now when our Lord speaks of His 
continued presence with His people, of His com¬ 
forting and sustaining power, the reference is 
to His deity. It was in the great commission 
He said, “I am with you always,” and to His 
disciples, “I will not leave you comfortless.” 
Certainly, He who is God, and who fills both 
earth and heaven, can always sustain, ‘en¬ 
courage and comfort those who are His. As 
the Christ, t%e Divine ©ne, He is forever 
veiling to help and support those who serve 
Him in a vrtal faith. As God, He was not 
crueified, did not die, and was not laid 


14 Pcemiikr*nift!isn} and The Higher Critic* 

jn the tomb; consequently, did not rise again, 
nor ascend into the open skies. 1 his was all 
done as a man; it is impossible for God to die. 
Now, while we have the “Christ” with us, it 
is not necessary for Him to return, He having 
never been absent, we have not “the Son 
of Man,” “this same Jesus,” with us, nor have 
His blessed feet been on this earth since He 
ascended from Olivet to His Father’s right 
hand, “whence He shall come to judge the quick 
and the dead.” 

If the reader will keep these facts in mind, 
he will be saved from the false assertions of 
post-miliennialism, and will understand that we 
are looking for the return of the man Jesus. 
It is the coming of the Galilean, the once cru¬ 
cified man, of which we write, and this is not 
only our saying, but it is that of the Word. 
It clearly and constantly brings out these dis¬ 
tinctions, speaking over and over of the; con¬ 
tinued presence of the “Christ,” and of ths 
premised return of “the Son of Man.” No¬ 
where in the Bible is there a word about th§ 
second coming of the “Son of God,” while 
there are scores of references to the judgment- 
dav coming of the man Jesus. 

When our Lord sto«d before the High Priest, 
on trial for His life, this functionary asked Him, 
“Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? ” 
Jesus replied, “I am; and ye shall see the Son 
pf Man sitting on the right hand of power, and 


Tke Son Of Man 


15 


coming in the clouds of heaven.” (Mark 14: 
62). The High Priest rent His garments, and 
pronounced the judgment of death upon Jesus 
as a blasphemer. He was not willing to ac¬ 
cord such honor and glory to this lowly car¬ 
penter of Nazareth, this despised Galilean 
prisoner. He felt and declared that it was blas¬ 
phemy for the man Jesus to claim a place ©f 
Divine Glory on the throne of the Blessed. 

In His eschatological discourse, our Lord bids 
us be ready and living in daily expectancy of 
His coming as a man. He speaks of the days 
of Lot, and of the days of Noah, and adds, 
“So shall also the coming of the Son of man 
be.” (Matt. 24:37-44.) Over and over again 
this glorious advent of our Lord is mentioned, 
and always in terms that represent His human- 
ity. 

Zecherian says, “Behold the man whose 
name is The Branch; and he (this man) shall 
grow up out of his place, and he shall build the 
temple of the Lord; even he shall build the tem¬ 
ple of the Lord; and he (this man) shall 
bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his 
throne; and he (this man,mark you) shall be 
& priest upon his throne” (6: 12 , 1 3). 

What a wonderful declaration. It is worth 
careful consideration by all the spiritualizes, by 
all who say, “Christ has already come, or is 
coming all the time.” When our Lord comes 
t® reign He will ceme as a man; as a man He 


16 PostmUIeimialisin and The Higher Critics 

will bear the glory, as a man he will sit upon 
His throne, and as a man will still be 
a priest, a mediator between God and man. 

In the Book of Acts, our Lord took the dis¬ 
ciple* out to a place apart, gave them His 
blessings, and the promise of the outpouring 
of His Spirit, and then suddenly, “He was taken 
up; and a cloud received Him out of their 
sight.” They stood gazing with great interest 
into the heavens, whither their Lord had gone. 
Presently. two white-robed visitants stood by 
them, and said, “Ye men of Galilee, why stand 
ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, 
which is taken up from you into heaven, shall 
so come in like manner as ye have seen Him 
go.” 

I have been shocked and yet amused, at the 
efforts of Goff and others to break the force of 
this passage. They have vainly attempted to 
show that the original of this text does not re¬ 
fer to the visible return of Jesus. Such trifling 
with the Word of God is inexcusable. Any 
thoughtful and unbiased reader who will con¬ 
sider carefully the setting of this passage will 
be forced to the conclusion that it can have 
but one meaning. Jesus was among His dis¬ 
ciples as a man. He had spoken to them word's 
of great import. Suddenly gravitation was 
reversed. Its earthly pull ceased, and lo! be¬ 
fore the astonished gaze of His disciples, the 
once crucified man of Galilee was seen to as- 


The Son Of Man 


17 


cend. He went up, up, up, until presently, a 
cloud intervening, they lost sight or Him. How 
their souls were thrilled. Their hearts must have 
well-nigh ceased to beat. They had seen Him 
work many miracles, but this capped the climax. 
A man had left the earth, even from their very 
presence, and had passed into the heavens. 
Surely this scene could never fade from their 
memories. Should they ever see Him again? 
But their thoughts were interrupted. The 
white-clad men brought them a message. It 
reads in substance thus: “This same Jesus, 
this Galilean, this Carpenter of Nazareth, this 
man once crucified and laid in Joseph’s tomb, 
but who rose from among the dead, and has 
now passed up into the heavens, shall return, 
even as He went.” 

He had gone as a man; as a man He will re¬ 
turn. He had gone visibly; visibly He will 
come again. Why should men wish to destroy 
this lesson? Why should they try to blot out 
this hope? For whose return do we look? 
For “this same Jesus” and for no one else. He 
who would undermine this plain statement, and 
the fact that the ascending One shall return 
as He went away, thereby perverts the Word 
of God, and makes his human theory to be a 
matter of greater importance than the simple, 
inspired Book of God. 

Sometimes when the second coming is 
spoken of in scripture, it is under the term 


IS PostmilI«nniaLsm and The Higher Critics 

“Lord.'' “Watch, therefore, for ye know not 
what hour your Lord doth come.” (Matt 24: 
42). Again,“ The Lord himself shall descend 
from heaven with a shout.” (1 Thess. 4:16). 
The word “Lord” is used in several different 
forms in the Bible. For example, we have the 
word written in large capitals, ‘‘LORD.” This 
refers to the dominion and glory of Jesus Christ 
in the full manifestation of His deity and man¬ 
hood, as when He rides forth upon His white 
horse, wearing upon his thigh the title of 
royalty, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF 
LORDS.” 

Then, in the Old Testament, we find the 
title “Lord” spelled with one large and three 
small capitals. This indicates the Messiahship 
of Jesus; the pre-incarnate Christ is here rec¬ 
ognized as Jehovah. We find this illustrated 
when the Lord appeared to Abraham. (Gen. 
13). The title thus written points to His 
manifestation in God-head. Then, there is an¬ 
other use of the word in the New Testament. 
Its initial letter (L) is a capital; the other let¬ 
ters arc small, Lord. The word written thus 
applies to the humanity of our Savior. In 
many passages concerning His return, we have 
it thus, as, “The Lord himself shall descend 
from Heaven.” When this form is used, it is 
intended to indicate that His coming is in His 
own proper humanity. 

The word “lord” in small letters is used only 


The Son Of Man 


19 


of men, and is about equivalent to “Sir." “The 
lord commended the unjust steward.” (Luke 
16: 8.) This does not mean that Jesus com¬ 
mended the trickster. It simply refers to the 
fact that the rascal’s master complimented his 
shrewdness, Now, when our Savior returns in 
the clouds, and is spoken of as the coming 
“Lord,” the reference is to His human lordship 
over the race. His coming is as earth’s ruler; 
its King; as the One who shall have dominion 
over the nations of this world. 

There is much more significance in this phase 
of the question than seme have recognized. If 
we would be true to the Bible, we must speak as 
it speaks. It always represents our Lord’s return 
in terms that apply to His humanity; but the 
post-millennial writers have utterly neglected 
this fact, and s ! o they are in endless confusion, 
making no distinction between His ever-present 
deity, and His glorious coming humanity. 

A case in point may be found in the parable 
of the nobleman. (Luke 19:11-27.) Will the 
reader kindly get his Bible and observe the pass¬ 
age carefully? We need not quote it in full here. 
The passage was spoken to correct the error of 
those who thought that the “kingdom of God 
should immediately appear.” They were mis¬ 
taken. This parable makes clear the fact that 
the kingdom would not be established at once. 
Observe, then the following points:. 


20 PcstmiHenniaKsm and The Higher Critics 

(1) fie who goes into the far country is a 
man, “a certain nobleman.” This nobleman 
is Jesus; the far country, heaven. 

(2) He not only goes, but He returns. It 
is a round trip. We had as well reject His 
going into Heaven, as His return from Heaven. 
And it is the same person who goes that is to 
return. He goes as a prince, or nobleman, but 
returns as a king. Nor is He king on the earth 
till His return, (Vs. 1?, 15.) 

(3) He was rejected by His countrymen—? 
the Jews, 

(4) He leaves His servants in charge of His 
possessions, and bids them, “'Occupy till 1 
come.” His interests must be cared for in His 
absence, by the servants to whom He has en¬ 
trusted the goods. O! that all were faithful to 
their trust. 

(5) When He returned, “having received 
the Kingdom,” He commanded the servants 
to be called unto whom He had given the 
money, that He might know how much each 
nad gained by trading. He who had turned one 
pound into ten was placed over ten cities. He 
who had made an increase of five-fold was like¬ 
wise put in charge of five cities. This whole 
scene is earthly. Men are not born in heaven, 

but on earth; and to this earth the nobleman 
returns as king. 

Jesus, the nobleman, was born of Mary in 
Bethlehem. He, her Son, like unto her, w*as hu- 


The Sen Of Man 


21 


man. When the Romanists call Mary “the moth¬ 
er of God” they blaspheme. His deity was thru 
the Holy Ghost, not through Mary, the woman. 
These servants were on earth, and here they 
received their judgment and were placed in 
charge of earthly cities, when the nobleman, 
returning as King, took charge of the govern¬ 
ment of the earth. 

(6) The worthless servant, failing to make 
any increase in the funds entrusted, was pro¬ 
nounced “wicked” and punished for his faiths 
lessness. So will it be at our Lord’s return. 

(7) His “enemies /" who had rejected His 
rulershlp, were slain before Him. This is ac¬ 
complished in the terrible times of tribulation, 
eventuating in the slaughter of those who, hav¬ 
ing had the light, rejected the dominion of our 
Lord. 

This whole lesson is so simple and plain that 
we do not need a philosopher or a theological 
professor to elucidate it. A child, or a man 
half-blind, could undoubtedly get the full sig¬ 
nificance of the passage. The entire scene is 
on the earth, save only the fact that the absent 
nobleman is invested with the Kingdom in the 
far country, but He exercises the kingly pre¬ 
rogative, not in the far country, but on 
the earth, and this is not till after His return. 

Opponents of premillennialism are very crit¬ 
ical of what they are pleased to call the “ma¬ 
terialism of premillennialists. ,, They call us 


22 Poetmilienniaiisni and 1 he Higher Critics 

“Judaisers;” they charge us with “losing sight 
of the spiritual nature” of our Lord’s Kingdom 
and of His frequent comings. 

This is chaffy criticism. God made this 
world, placed man on it, and gave nirn charge 
over it. After man’s fall, our Lord assumed 
human nature, flesh and blood, and lived and 
died as a man, that the human race might be 
restored to God. His second coming, like that 
of His first, is the coming ot a man. His first 
appearing was in lowliness; His second coming 
will be in grandeur and in celestial glory. His 
first advent, beginning in a manger, was a pil¬ 
grimage of poverty; His second advent is a 
pageant of renown. 

These servants are judged as men, to find out 
the result of their service. They are appointed 
to rulership, as men over men. There are no 
ten cities in heaven; there are no five cities 
there. This scene is not laid in the skies, but 
on the earth. The appointment is not to celes¬ 
tial hilltops, but to earthly cities. Our Lord’s 
conflict is not with angels in heaven; but with 
men and demons here below. He is not. seek¬ 
ing the subjugation of heaven, but of earth. 
The celestial world has not gone astray, it is not 
lost, and hence needs no redemption. The bat¬ 
tle is here. This world is the scene of conflict, 
it being fallen and under the dominon of de¬ 
mons, yea, of Satan, must be redeemed and 
brought into obedience to divine order. Satan 


Ths Son Of Man 


23 


has for centuries ruled it as a king-; he has 
blighted, cursed, and well-nigh damned it. But 
he shall be cast out. His dominion shall be 
destroyed. The curse shall be lifted, and all 
evil driven from the earth. This earth, di¬ 
vinely purged, spiritually purified, saved from 
all the effects of transgression, shall be brought 
back into the circle of holy worlds. Hence¬ 
forth, after the triumph of our Lord upon it, the 
earth shall be as holy and as happy as when 
God made it, and the angels sang for joy above 
it. This cannot be effected by the agency cf 
preachers and churches, but by the power of the 
God-Man, Jesus Christ. 

It is sad to see men pervert this whole truth, 
lose sight of the federal headship of Jesus 
over the earth, and wrangle and dispute in the 
fogs of a dreamland of their own invention 
about “the spiritual” and the “constantly-re¬ 
curring comings” of Christ. They tell us that 
“Christ has been coming for centuries.” This 
is absurd. It is wide of the mark. It does not 
touch the question of the glorious return of 
the nobleman from “the far country” to take 
charge of the earth as the scene of His birth, 
and by the aid of His faithful servants, to es¬ 
tablish His Kingdom over it. “Christ” has not 
been “coming,” having never been absent (“l 
am with you all the days”); and “Jesus” has 
not “been coining,” but will come “suddenly,” 
finding many “sleeping,” one of these days. 
(Mark 13 :32-37). 


THE REDEMPTION OF FORFEITED 

ESTATES 

In the law of Moses, there is given a method 
of redemption for forfeited estates. (Lev. 25: 
25-47-49.) When a Hebrew, becoming poor, 
was forced to sell his homestead, this redemp¬ 
tion law in the Mosaic code entitled one near 
of kin to redeem the lost estate and thus pre¬ 
serve it to the family. A stranger could not 
meet the case, since the redemption could be 
effected only by one who had blood connection. 

Our fore-parents, in their lapse from the 
Divine harmony, sold out their offspring, and 
forfeited their estate to the Devil. Hence, he 
is “the god of this world.” This accounts for 
its universal wickedness. Is there any source 
of deliverance? There is. The preterist claims 
that the restoration is already accomplished. 
The postmillennialist thinks it will be accom¬ 
plished by the present gospel agencies. The 
Bible teaches that our kinsman, Jesus Christ, 
by taking our nature and suffering for us, be¬ 
comes the “last Adam,” and hence, as the rep¬ 
resentative head of the race, becomes its sov¬ 
ereign and ruler. His power is more than a 
match for Satan. His blood relationship with 
us entitles Him to the right of redemption. 
Thus, as a man, He shall rule over this world, 
and bring it into absolute subjection to Himself. 
He is holy; has the power of God-head; is One 
with the Father; is therefore thoroughly com- 


The Son Of Mam 


25 


petent, and He is sure to accomplish the glori¬ 
ous work He has undertaken. Deity qualifies 
humanity. And He possesses both. Dying 
for us, He went into the regions of the dead, 
wrenched the crown and sceptre from the grim 
monster, dethroned the monarch of those spirit 
regions, trampled Death under His feet, and 
rising from among the dead, showed Himself 
alive forevermore. “Death hath no more do¬ 
minion over Him.” He has the keys of death 
and hell. He is Victor over a vanquished foe. 
He is Redeemer of man, Lord of life, king of 
earth and glory. Ascending on high as a noble¬ 
man. He is divinely-invested with kingly 
authority; and, as a man, He will return to earth 
to reign over all rivals in endless glory. 

This Redeemer, our noble Kinsman, is the 
second Adam. (1 Cor. 15:45-47.) 

The earth now has a new Master. The 
fallen race has an unfallen Leader. This estate 
lost by one Adam, is regained and will forever 
be dominated by a second Adam. This is King 
Jesus. Once a lowly carpenter, toiling in pov¬ 
erty and oblivion, a Galilean peasant, He shall 
reign forever in the matchless glory of God¬ 
head. A lost earth redeemed shall again be 
filled with holiness, and upon it God’s will shall 
be done, “as in heaven.” Absent now, He will 
return and earth shall see, recognize and ac¬ 
knowledge Him. The nations shall bow at His 


26 PoaS^niilennialism and The Higher Critics 

feet, and crown Him their Lord. Hail to the 
Kin?! 


L. L. P. 


CHAPTER Ii. 

NOTES ON SNOWDEN 

Mr. Snowden’s book is entitled “The Com* 
ing of the Lord.” This book is thoroughly 
postmillennial, though the writer may not al¬ 
ways be consistent in his teachings. His posi¬ 
tion is set forth in the following words, “Amidst 
all the complications and ramifications of our 
subject the one central point this book holds 
in view and contends for is that the kingdom 
of God is now being established and will reach 
its full development in the world under the 
present ministration of the gospel and agency 
of the Holy Spirit, and will be followed by the 
final advent of Christ and the eternal state; 
and the view it opposes reverses this order and 
holds that Christ must first come m judgment 
and power before this work can be achieved.” 
(Preface, pp. ix and x.)- 

I am glad Professor Snowden has stated his 
position so clearly in the above quotation. The 
issue is clearly joined; my colleague and I seek 
to show in these pages by unmistakable testi¬ 
mony of inspired men that the world will not 
be converted until after the return of our Lord. 
Rev. Geo. P. Eckman, though himself a pro¬ 
nounced postmillenialist, has said, “One must 
admit that though the necessity of Christ’s re¬ 
turn in order to conquer the world is not proved, 
the feeling that it may be required is one of the 
strongest incentives for a belief in the second 


28 PoEtmiilennmtism and The Higher Critics 

coming in the minds of many persons.” (Re¬ 
turn of the Redeemer, p. 21.) Again he says, 
‘The fact remains that hosts of earnest Chris¬ 
tians have no confidence that right can win in 
this world till the return of our Lord” (p. 
2 7.) Again Mr. Eckman says, “Before the 
goal of human history has been passed, and 
while the world yet endures on the very field 
where men have wrought the good and ill of 
their lives, they are to receive the final ap¬ 
praisal of their earthly deeds.” (Ibid., p. 23.) 

Mr. Snowden is right in saying that we should 
seek to know the mind of a Bible writer before 
making use of what he says. He then makes 
this statement, “The Old Testament prophetic 
passages obviously refer to the first coming of 
the Messiah, the only coming that had yet risen 
above the horizon of the prophets, and it is only 
by a feat of athletic exegesis that these refer¬ 
ences can be heaved over into the second com¬ 
ing.” (p. 3 8). It may be possible that the 
prophets of olden time did not discern the two 
comings of our Lord, the one to redeem us, 
the other to reign over the world. But what¬ 
ever may have been their vision, the Lord who 
inspired their utterances had a full and perfect 
discernment. It is now clear to any careful 
student of their writings that certain of them 
referred to the first coming, while certain 
others pertained to His second coming. For 

example, Enoch, “the seventh from Adam,” 


Notes On Snowden 


29 


prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord cometh 
with ten thousands of His saints to execute 
judgment.” (Jude 14.) Now, whatever 
Enoch may have known concerning the two 
comings of our Lord, we know that this can 
rate only to the judgment-day return of Jesus 
at the end of this age. In like manner, when 
Jeremiah foretold the reign of Jesus in kingly 
power over Judah and Israel (23:3-7) he gave 
utterance to a prophecy that can have its ful¬ 
fillment only at the second coming of our Lord. 
The declarations also of Daniel concerning the 
stone smashing the image, the setting up of 
thrones, the overthrow of the beast, and the 
reign of the saints can have their fulfillment 
only at the apocalypse of our Redeemer. 

From the above it will be seen that we must, 
to properly interpret the prophets, get the mind 
of the Spirit, and not merely the mind of the 
man whom God used in bringing the truth to 
us. 

Mr. Snowden is right in saying, “to take 
figurative language literally, or literal language 
figuratively, is to be blind to its real meaning 
and may subvert tha very foundations of 
human communication” (p. 40). While this 
is true, it is a sword that cuts both ways. Our 
brethren of the postmillennial persuasion must 
be careful to observe this, as well as we of the 
premillennial faith. 

Further on Mr. Snowden lets the gap down 


30 pGfchnillenmaiimi and The Higher Critics 

tor his figurative method of interpreting the 
prophecies as follows: “The Bible is an 
Oriental book throughout, and the Oriental 
mind by nature is imaginative and figurative in 
its modes of conception and expression.” He 
then adds, “Now the principle of historic in¬ 
terpretation applies to these symbolical books. 
They were addressed to believers under ter¬ 
rible trials, Daniel to those under the atrocities 
of Antiochus Epiphanes in the second century 
B. C., and Revelation to those in the dreadful 
days of the Roman persecution in the first cen¬ 
tury A. D., and the object was to sustain and 
comfort believers in these tragical times” (p. 
44). In the above our friend has prepared 
himself to readily dispense with the testimony 
of Daniel, and such other of the prophets as 
would upset his postnlillennial dogma. No per¬ 
son who believes the book of Daniel to be an 
inspired prophecy accepts its date as late as the 
second century B. C. It was written in the 
sixth century B. C. and is a fully inspired 
prophecy. He has lined up with Case, Rail 
and 'other destructive critics in repudiating the 
prophetic character of this ancient book, as well 
as the personality of the prophet. Let the 
reader see what we have to say concerning this 
seductive treatment of the book of Daniel 
and his personal character, in our comments 

upon Case. Their treatment of this prophet 
is absurd and is born of the desire to 


Noles On Snowden 


31 


get rid of Daniel’s clear and unmistakable pre- 
millenniallsm. We consider neither fair nor 
honest the effort of the modern critics to under¬ 
mine and destroy the inspired utterances of 
the books of Deniel, Revelation, and other 
prophetic scriptures, which these critics are 
so fond of labeling apocalyptic. The fact 
is, they treat these prophets as apocraphal 
rather than apocalyptic. They put them in the 
doubtful column and thereby allow them to 
bring us no certain message from God. Shall 
we consent to have our Bible eviscerated in any 
such manner? Daniel, John, and the rest of 
the prophets, bring me a clear and definite 
message from the skies. Through them God 
speaks to my mind, clarifies my vision, stimu¬ 
lates my faith, and fructifies my hope. Nor 
will I discard these prophets, with their divine 
message, at the behest of Snowden, the German 
destructive critics, the Pope of Rome, or any 
other postmillennial dogmatist. 

Postmillennialism makes a mighty appeal to 
church dignitaries. To those in high position, 
who possess churchly honors and emoluments, 
the thought cf world-winning is very attrac¬ 
tive. The triumph of their schemes, the prop¬ 
agation of their dogmas, and the subjugaton of 
races by their methods of propaganda are very 
appealing, but their world-winning schemes 
will fail. Their utter inability to win the world 
is already becoming thoroughly manifest. Ger- 


32 Postmillermialism and The Higher Critics 

many’s war-lords had well-laid schemes of 
world conquest, and even went so far as to 
announce the disposition they would make of 
the conquered peoples. But—!! 

The Master denounced the great ecclesiastics 
of His day as a generation of vipers who made 
void the law of God through their traditions; 
who would not enter the Kingdom of God 
themselves, and even hindered those who 
sought to do so. Luke other postmillennialists 
they thought the nations must all be subjugated 
to their ecclesiastical dominance; but Jesus 
condemned them in unmeasured terms; and 
said that you cannot be saved unless your right¬ 
eousness exceed theirs. Their self-inflated 
super-importance withered under the castiga¬ 
tions of Him who knoweth the hearts of all 
men. If He were on earth now He would find 
millions cf Romanists bowing down to images, 
as other pagans, while claiming to be “The 
Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church,” and He 

would find even in Protestantism that the forces 
of Pharisaism are immeasureably more numer¬ 
ous than among the Jews when His blessed feet 
trod the shores of Galilee, while vital godliness 
is scarcely known in the earth. Then Phari¬ 
sees were only of the Jews; now they abound 
in many lands. 

But we shall examine some of the more no¬ 
ticeable features of Mr. Snowden’s arguments. 


Notes On Snowden 


33 


(1) A QUESTION OF SCHOLARSHIP 

From the book (before us we quote: “Mod¬ 
ern learning in general has made the premil- 
lenarian theory less tenable and more difficult 
to entertain” (p. 33). So vast and complex 
a book as the Bible is not to be mastered in 
a generation or a century, and modern schol¬ 
arship has greatly illuminated it and deduced 
its true teaching and spirit” (p. 264). This 
may be partly true, but we greatly fear some 
of the results of “Modern scholarship,” certain 
tendencies of which we shall take note. 

Mr. Ssowden says, “In order to find out the 
present attitude of Biblical scholarship on this 
question as represented by the professors in 
our theological seminaries we applied for and 
obtained official information on this point from 
twenty-seven leading institutions in eight de¬ 
nominations, with the result that out of the 2 36 
members of the faculties of these theological 
seminaries only eight are premillenarlans. This 
is a significant showing, and the only way to 
break its force is to claim that these men who 
are professional. students of the Bible know 
less about its true teaching than other men” 
(p. 32). 

We recognize the value of learning. God 
puts no premium on ignorance. It is of the 
nature of laziness, and is a great handicap to 
any true man who seeks to be useful. And yet 
G«d never allows Himself and His truth to 


34 Foetmilleimialum and The Higher Critis* 

be dependent on learning. Jehovah uses the 
man of learning and humility; but He is never 
subservient to or dependent upon human schol¬ 
arship, and its vaunting self-reliance. Jesus 
said, “1 thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven 
and earth, because thou hast hid these things 
from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed 
them unto babes.” (Matt. 11:25.) In Isaiah 
God says, “The wisdom of their wise men shall 
perish, and the understanding of their prudent 
men shall be hid.” (29:14.) 

Paul, taking the above words from Isaiah, 
preaches forcefully against a worldly philoso¬ 
phy. (See 1 Cor. 1:19-29.) 

The world by its wisdom, by the learning of 
the schools, has never yet been able to “know 
God.” It may boast of its philosophy, herald 
abroad its science, and proclaim from the 
mountain peaks the greatness of its attainments, 
but in and through it all, it can never gain a 
true knowledge of Jehovah. 

Hear this, ye latter-day critics! Ye who are 
passing judgment upon prophets, apostles and 
even the Lord of glory Himself! Of all the 
writers of the sacred books (perhaps forty) 
there seems to have been but two, possibly 
three, men of extensive scholarship. Moses 
was learned in all Egyptain lore; Paul, an ex¬ 
ceptional student, had studied at the feet of 
the great Gamaliel. Daniel was most likely 
ft man of research, as he was certainly a man 


Note* On snowden 35 

of brains. But even these mighty men of God 
are suffering constant attack at the hands of 
your vaunted, self-reliant “scholars.” The 
scribes of Jesus’ day were the professional 
Bible expositors then; and they supplanted the 
Word by their traditions. 

The greatest enemies of our holy religion 
today are these supercilious high-brows, who 
are not honest enough to come out in the open, 
proclaim themselves followers of Voltaire, 
Paine, Bolingbroke, Bob Ingersoll and other 
noted infidels of the past. The old-time, beer- 
guzzling infidel who denied the existence of 
God, the truth of the Bible, and the reality 
of a future life, is out of date. But “his soul 
goes marching on.” Our present day infidelity, 
be-gowned and be-spectacled, and in the “pro¬ 
fessors’ chair,” is seeking to take God out of 
the Book, leaving it as a mere human produc¬ 
tion, whole sections of which these be-lettered 
Solomons are consigning to an apochraphal 
junk-heap. 

From a tract issued by The Christian Edu¬ 
cation Movement, M. E. Church, South, we 
quote: “God and religion have been driven 
from our schools by the law of the land, and a 
recent survey showed that 60 per cent of the 
professors and half of the advanced students 
in great secular colleges deny both the existence 

of God and the immortality of the soul. We 
are on a dangerous trail.” Their reference is 


36 Pc^tmiilennialitm and The Higher Critki 

to ‘Secular schools, but Beiler, Rail, Knudscn, 
Wm. Newton Clarke and other destructive 
critics arc in leading church schools, and are 
destroying faith in the Bible as an inspired 
book. If Mr. Snowden’s 236 postmillennial 
professors are a sufficient proof of his postmil¬ 
lennial dogma then they are likewise an im¬ 
pregnable bulwark of the evolutionary origin of 
man in protoplasm as taught by many so called 
scientists. 

Germany followed her intellectual high¬ 
brows to- a Gehenna of her own making. They 
cut the Bible to pieces, discarded the old-time 
“inspiration” of the Word, dismissed God Him¬ 
self from the school-room, drove His only-be- 
goiten Son from the place of rulership which is 
rightfully His, starved the souls of their de¬ 
luded followers and drenched the German 
Church in infidelity, and the world in blood. 

Now these same swaggering sinners are cap¬ 
turing the colleges, seminaries and class-rooms 
of this nation, and are seeking to do for us what 
they have done for Germany. God can be dis¬ 
missed from the class-room, and from the heart 
and home, and even the doors of the church 
may be closed against Him, but He is God; and 
when He cannot save, He can smash. Whom 
He cannot exalt, He can abase. Whom He 
cannot purify and crown through redeeming 
love, He can crush beneath His chariots of 
judgment. 


3? 


Notes On Snowden 

O, ye self-opinionated critics, beware’ 

Has anyone seen a representative of “schol¬ 
astic” type, a dissecter of the Bible, holding an 
old-time revival? Are any of them weeping- 
prophets? Do they come fresh from their 
knees, and after a John the Baptist or John 
Wesley style lead penitent thousands to Christ? 

I never knew a single higher critic who was a 
soul-winner. Have you, friend Snowden, or 
kindly reader? 

True, we premillennialists may not have 
many men among us who are at the top 
on the mountain of scholarship, but, thank 
God, we have no infidel critics, no man 
among us, who is so full of “learning" as 
to turn one Moses into five, or one Isaiah 
into two, and as to know more about “the 
last things" than John, the beloved disciple. 
Premillenarians do not say of the Apoca¬ 
lypse, as does Franklin Rail, that it has 
had its day, and that thinking men do not 
look upon it as inspired. Rail’s word is, “It’s 
apocalyptism no longer commends it to 
thoughtful men, and the hope of the Christian 
Church looks forward to a different manner of 
salvation" (p. 95). 

Higher criticism is eviscerating our Bible, fill¬ 
ing our pulpits with infidels, and our churches 
with doubters, dancers and every form of world¬ 
ling. But while premillennialists may not be 
noted for exalted types of self-inflated scholar- 


38 PostmiHennialis^n and Tlie Higher Critics 

ship, they can read and pray, can believe then 
Bible from cover to cover, and can preach a 
gospel of purity and power. They can believe 
in God as Father, in Jesus Christ as Lord and 
Redeemer, in the atoning blood, in salvation 
from sin here, and can rest in the comfort¬ 
ing hope of heaven hereafter. They can 
so preach law and (judgment, repentance 
and regeneration, salvation and sanctifica¬ 
tion, purity and power, as to lead hosts 
to God and to a confident expectation of 
our Lord’s glorious coming and kingdom. 

We may not name among us men of super¬ 
attainments in linguistic lore, but we can point 
to men and women of true piety who believe 
the 'Old Book’, who obey its teachings; expect 
the fulfillment of its promises, both personal 
and prophetic; and who through its guidance 
shall some day join the hosts of the blood- 
washed in the presence of the King. They can 
batter down the walls of wickedness, scale the 
heights of holiness, pray open prison doors, 
and shout victory on every battlefield. 

Among us now and in the recent past can 
be named Moody and Sankey, mighty in re¬ 
vivals; Torrey, Chapman and Billy Sunday, 
John B. Culpepper, L. W. Munhall, Bob Jones, 
John E. Brown, H. C. Morrison, A. P. Gouthey, 
Will H. Huff, and other soul-winning evange¬ 
lists, men of force and effectiveness in works 
for God and human uplift through whose 


Notes On Snowden 


39 


mighty faith and stirring messages wonders 
have been wrought, and thousands of souls 
have been led to Christ. 

We may not have many “scholars” in our 
premillennial ranks, but we have or have lately 
had Paul Rader, head of the Christian and Mis¬ 
sionary Alliance; J. Hudson Taylor, Mayne 
Payne Ferguson and the International Holiness 
Association, through whom many hundreds of 
missionaries have gone forth pressing the 
battle in the very strongholds of sin, pointing 
men and women to the coming Kingdom of 
our Lord. Their influence has been felt around 
the world, and always for God and His king¬ 
dom. I had rather have the fellowship of 
these people of mighty faith, than to secure 
the backing and approval of all Germany’s, 
Harvard’s and Chicago University’s postmil- 
lennfial representatives of “modern scholar¬ 
ship.” 

Twenty-five or thirty years ago, some who 
really believed the Bible, such as Bishop Mer¬ 
rill, Daniel Steele and other good men, pro¬ 
claimed the postmillennial creed. But later 
proponents of this dogma are very largely turn¬ 
ing to the shelter of “critical scholarship.” 
They have found that they cannot hold their 
ground, while conceding the inspiration of the 
whole Bible. So their chief defense at present 
against the sledge-hammer blows of Bible-be- 

lieving premillenarians is to be found in dlsput- 


40 Poatmillennialism and The Higher Critics 

ing the Divine authority of whole sections of 
the Bible. If they must preach the unscrip- 
tural dogma, their course is sane; but it were 
far better to accept the full inspiration of the 
Bible as the Word of the Eternal God, than to 
whittle it to pieces in order to sustain an inde¬ 
fensible and strictly human creed. 

At what chapter and verse can we find in the 
Scripture these words: Through modern schol¬ 
arship, Noah prepared an ark to the saving of 
his family; by which he condemned the world, 
and became heir of the righteousness which is 
of great learning? By scholarship, Abraham 
went out, not knowing whither he went. By 
scientific research Enoch was translated, and be¬ 
fore his translation, he had this testimony, that 
being a man of great learning, he pleased God. 
And without great learning it is impossible to 
please God, for he that cometh to God must 
dig Greek roots and luxuriate in Hebrew, Ger¬ 
man and Latin lore? 

Show me the above passage in the Bible and 
I will call your attention to the verses imme¬ 
diately following that point to a glorious post- 

millennial triumph of the church over the 
Devil and all his forces before our Lord’s re¬ 
turn. We are not dependent upon men of 
exceptional learning half so much as we are on 
those of thorough consecration, of deep spirit¬ 
uality and of an unshakeable faith. 


Notes On Snowden 


41 


John Wesley, himself a great scholar, cer¬ 
tainly did not undervalue learning, but he said, 
“Give me one hundred men who hate nothing 
but sin, and fear nothing but God, and 1 will 
shake the world.” From the farms and forges / 
the mills and mines, he got his hundred men, 
mostly like the apostles, “unlearned and ignor¬ 
ant men,” and he shook and is yet shaking the 
world. But v/oe to Methodism if her critical 
scholastics lead her to reject vital religion and 
an inspired Book! Her power for shaking the 
world will have forever departed. 

When John Knox prayed, “Give me Scot¬ 
land or I die,” the bloody queen was alarmed, 
fearing him more than all the armies of Europe; 
but John Knox was not an infidel critic. Hi 
was a humble believer in the Holy Bible. Give 
us more Presbyterians of his stripe and we will 
get greater results for truth and righteousness 
than from all the modern scholastics. 

To know all that may be learned of scienci 
and of languages, including those in which the 
Scriptures were originally given, is indeed good 
But to know the Originator of the Wonderful 
Book, to know Him as its Author and Subject- 
matter is infinitely better. 

Paul was a man of learning and languages, 
but his scholarship was not of that higher or 
hypercritical variety that leads to the rejec¬ 
tion of the law and the prophets, as oriental 
dreamers, for that lands its victims in the meshes 


42 Postomllennialism and The Higher Critics 

of a vain, delusive postmillenialism. Paul 
ranked next to his Lord as chiefest of premil- 
lennialists. Though not listed among our 
brother’s 236 (less 8) postmillennial pro¬ 
fessors, Brother Paul outranks them all. 

(2) A SERIOUS DEPARTURE 

Our fathers believed in the Divine inspira¬ 
tion of the Bible. To them, prophets and apos¬ 
tles received from heaven and passed on to 
us, messages suitable to our need. They be¬ 
lieved, with Peter, that “holy men of God 
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” 
(2 Pet. 1:21), and with Paul that “all scrip¬ 
ture was given by inspiration of God, and is 
profitable” for holy living. With them, these 
scriptures, known by Timothy from childhood, 
are “able to make one wise unto salvation 
through faith in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim. 3 :15, 
16). The man of God “meditates therein day 
and night.” (Psalm 1.) The Psalmist said, 

“Thy word have 1 hid in my heart, that I might 
not sin against Thee.” (119:11.) It was 
with this “sword of the Spirit” (Eph. 6:17) 
that Jesus met the tempter and drove him from 
the field of conflict (Matt 4.) He parried every 
blow of the devil with, “It is written.” 

But do not our higher critical postmillennial 
writers treat the Word of God as inspired? At 
least the most recent of them as a rule do not. 
Shirley J. Case, in his book, “The Revelation 


Notes On Snowden 


43 


of John,” says, under the caption, ‘‘Typical 
Revelations” (p. 57), “It is no longer CUS¬ 
TOMARY to write apocalypses, nor is it easy 
for moderns to understand this ANTIQUATED 
type of literature.” There you have it! 

The books he is pleased to label “apocalyp¬ 
tic” are all out of date, according to Case. Of 
course we are as able to write this kind of book 
as Daniel or John! It would seem as though 
we are as much inspired as they; but we are 
more practical, more scientific, more disposed 
to call for the proofs. None of your inspired 
Oriental dreams and visions for us! Give us 
the latest findings of science, the most up-to- 
date pronouncements of modern scholarship. 
Ah! Such seems to be the attitude of our most 
recent postmillennial writers. Though I may 
be a bit out-of-date, even an old fogy, I must 
still stand by the inspiration of the Bible. With 
Isaiah I say, “If they speak not according to 
this word, it is because there is no light in 
them.” (8:20.) 

Elsewhere Professor Case makes out of the 
Book of Daniel a romance pure and simple. 
“Instead of writing in his own name,” he 
blandly informs us, “the unknown author pic¬ 
tures Daniel as a seer of ancient times, living a 
model life under similarly distressing circum¬ 
stances (similar to the persecution of the Jews 
under Antiochus Epiphanes), and seeing in his 
visions the favorable outcome of the trying 


44 Postmillennialism and The Higher Critics 

experiences through which the Jews were to 
pass in later years at the time when the book 
was actually written. The scene is laid in Baby¬ 
lonia at the court of the king during the Exile.” 
(Revelation of St. John, p. 67.) 

Case, Rail, Shailer Matthews, W. Newton 
Clarke, Snowden, Mains, with many others 
whose names we could give, are drifting rap¬ 
idly into this method of treating the Word of 
God. To them, it is purely and simply a human 
production. It is the word of human authors 
and contains no especial message from God. 

Prof. Snowden, is already quoted, attri¬ 
butes the book of Daniel to second century 
authorship, as assured here by Case. He puts 
himself in the same categtony as Case. 

A simple believer in the Bible as accepted 
by our fathers naturally asks how Mr. Case 
came to know all this. It is not in the book 
of Daniel, nor is it in the other prophets. To 
Case’s mind, Daniel was not a real character. 
He never lived, hence, never prophesied; being 
only the hero of a romance wiitten by an un¬ 
known author in the second century, B. C. 
Jesus, however, as we show elsewhere, treated 
Daniel as a prophet; and a believer in the in¬ 
spiration of the Bible must give him the same 
rating. I like scholarship, am a friend of learn¬ 
ing, having taken some interest in the promo¬ 
tion of education; but I had much rather know 
a little that is true than to know so many things 


Notes On Snowden 


45 


that are false; and I had rather have a whole 
Bible, all of which I can believe, and be a pre- 
millennialist, than to be a postraillennialist at 
the expense of a mutilated Bible. If I must 
discard postmillennialism or renounce my 
Bible, I shall, to the end, be an active and ag- 
gresive premillennialist. I want a Bible that 
l can study, can accept without question, can 
live by seven days in the week, and through 
the teachings of which I can, with holy hope, 
wait and watch for the glorious advent of my 
Lord and Master. 

If He shall delay His coming till death smite 
me, I want a whole Bible, an inspired Bible, at 
the hour of my departure. Then I shall pillow 
my head upon its promises, lie down in peace 
with God and man, and when my Lord does re¬ 
turn in glory, I shall join the pageant of His 
kingly renown as it sweeps through the air to 
the city of His world empire, and shall be 
with Him forever. 

We can agree with Professor Snowden in a 
number of his utterances. He describes the 
lowly origin and humble, sacrificial life of 
Jesus in an acceptable manner. He then tells 
of His death, resurrection and ascension, “leav¬ 
ing His wondering disciples gazing after him in 
the sky. In his second visit he will come in 
the' glory of his Father with the holy angels. 
As his first coming filled the Old (Testament 
with the dawn of the hope of the promised 


48 Postmillennialism aznl 1 he Higher Critics 

Messiah, so his second coming is the sunrise 
of hope in the New Testament. This blessed 
hope of his return overarches the lengthening 
day in which we live and work, and is the 
golden link that binds his first with his second 
coming” (p. 1). He speaks on other pages 
of a proper study of the Bible that we may 
know whether the language before us is figu¬ 
rative or literal. Of course, this is right. There 
are many beautiful, symbolic and figurative 
lessons in the Bible; but the return of our 
Lord does not come under this class of scripture. 

I know of no passage in connection with the 
subject of the second coming of our Lord that 
makes it to be a “figurative” coming. Of 
course, there is the return of Jesus in His 
humanity, and there is the personal visitation 
of the Christhood, but this we have discussed 
elsewhere. Let us study to know the meaning 
of the Word. 

So far we stand together on the question of 
scripture literalness. It is evident that many 
passages have a figurative significance, as when 
the Psalmist said, “The Lord God is a sun and 
shield,” or as when Jesus said, “I am the vine, 
ye are the branches;” or as when He gave the 
sacramental bread and wine, declaring “This is 
blood.” These are beautiful symbols. But all 
Rome’s popes and priests can never make bread 
and wine to be the actual body and the real 
blood of the Crucified. And those Pagan pre- 


Notes On Snowden 


47 


tenders know this as well as we. Only let 
those of us who seek to know the truth concern¬ 
ing our Lord’s near coming not allow ourselves 
to become befuddled by the vagaries of men 
who think more of their dogma than they do 
of the Book of all books. 

Rev. B. F. Haynes in his Autobiography says 
concerning the Lord’s return: “I found that the 
greatest missionaries in all history had ibeen 
believers in this truth, without a solitary excep¬ 
tion that I can recall. Also that the greatest 
commentators in the world’s history were 
ardent believers in it, such as Lange, Oldhausen, 
Van Ooster Zee, Scofield, Meyer, Melanc- 
thon, called the brains of the Reformation, 
Alexander Maclaren, Lowth, Benj. Keach, Jami¬ 
son, Matthew Henry, Jachin of Floris, called 
the greatest exegete of the Middle Ages, Fred¬ 
erick Godet, F. S. Faussett, Bishop Ellicott, 
De Wette, Dullinger, Albert Barnes, Dean Al¬ 
ford, G. Campbell Morgan, Tregelles, Delitzsch, 
Stier, and many others. I found that the most 
eminent evangelists the world ever had were 
premillennialists, as were prominent theolog¬ 
ians in all the ages of the Church. I can 
furnish at least four hundred names of such” 
(pp. 484, 485). “I was surprised to find that 
this great truth of the second coming was lit¬ 
erally the key to the Bible.” “There is not a 

vital doctrine of the Bible which is not made 
more luminous and reasonable by the light of 


4S Postmillennialism and The Higher Critics 

this marvelous truth of the second coming.” 
(pp. 86, 87.) 

In conclusion, I would call attention to Pro¬ 
fessor’ Snowden’s expectation that under the 
agencies now at v/ork “the kingdom of God 
will reach its full development.” In the light 
of this teaching, consider the following facts: 

1. Of the present population of the earth 
(1,650,000,000), about 1,425,000,000 are 
adherents of paganism, popery and Moham- 
medism, followers of the dragon, the beast 
and the false prophet, leaving only 225,000,- 
000 of adherents of the Christian religion, of 
whom not one in ten is likely a regenerated, 
Bible-loving, sin-hating, holy Christian. 

2. Most of the churches, even in this best 
of nations, are poorly attended and many of 
them empty. I was some time since asked 
to fill the pulpit of a Methodist church of eight 
hundred and fifty members at the pastor’s 
regular Sunday evening service in an Ohio city 
and was greeted by an audience of fifty-eight. 
This is perhaps not exceptional. 

3. Many pastors are not even preaching the 
gospel of God’s redeeming grace, but are 
trying to entertain the people with “travel¬ 
ogues,” “stereopticons,” “sacred concerts,” 
and “readings.” In a city where I was re¬ 
cently preaching, the pastor of a leading church 

spoke on Sunday evening on Wright’s recent 
book, “Helen of the Old House.” In one of 


Notes On Snowden 


49 


his Lenten services he answered, among other 
questions, “Why does a woman conceal her 
age? ” and “Is the Roman Catholic a Christian 
church?” Of course, he said Rome is Chris¬ 
tian. Tho she has burned Bibles by the millions 
and murdered millions of God’s humble martyrs 
for no greater offense than reading the Book 
of books and praying in their homes, yet this 
apostate preacher, who is preaching recent fic¬ 
tion instead of God’s Word, labels the “mother 
of harlots” a Christian church! Empty churches 
and crowded movies may satisfy the “opti¬ 
mism” of a postmillennialist, but it is a sad 
picture to a lover of Bible salvation. 

4. Our theological schools are almost with¬ 
out exception hotbeds of rationalistic, destruc¬ 
tive criticism, and our colleges are almost 
unanimously sodden with a naturalistic type 
of evolution that is seeking the origin of its 
own promoters in the ocean depths of proto¬ 
plasmic slime. A man must have little self- 
respect who is satisfied to trace his ancestry 
back through monkeys to protoplasm,a germ- 
infected ooze or slime. Huxley’s doctrine was, 
“Protoplasm is the origin of all life—it is a 
molecular machine, all-powerful and all-suffi¬ 
cient.” (Quoted from Townsend’s “Collapse 
of Evolution,” p. 17.) From the same book 
(p. 19) we read, “The professor of physio¬ 
logical chemistry in the University of Chicago 
is reported to have used recently in his lecture 


SO said The Higher Critics 

room these words: The divine creation of life 
is a pure humbug. Life originally happened/ ” 
If this is true, that professor is himself an 
accident. But if the trustees of that university 
are worthy of their position, such an “accident’' 
should not be allowed to longer encumber their 
premises. 

They call evolution a science. It could be 
much more truly labeled “Guessology,” for it 
is the unscientific science of poor guessing. It 
is a sad fact that in most of the centers of 
“scholasticism” the evolutionist and the ration¬ 
alistic higher critic are in the ascendant, and 
their principal business seems to be to under¬ 
mine the student’s faith in the Bible as an inspir¬ 
ed book. Thus the student’s religions life is 
wrecked. Many young men are turned out infi¬ 
dels, and among them hundreds of would-be 
pastors are sent forth upon society and the 
church to pick the Bible to pieces, to peddle 
their “scientific” guesses, and to destroy the 
faith of the people with Darwinian theories and 
rationalistic ravings. 

5. In the meantime, nations are falling into 
ruins. War, pestilence and famine are spread¬ 
ing abroad in the earth. Bolshevism abounds; 
anarchy spews its poisonous venom out upon 
the nations; our cities are stewing cesspools 
of lust; banditry, burglary, bigamy and brutal¬ 
ity break m boundless waves against the home, 


Notes On Snowden 51 

the school and the Church, those citadels of 
civic righteousness. 

Still Mr. Snowden and his postmillennial 
adherents are looking for a converted world 
under the present regime! 


L. L. P. 


CHAPTER III. 

RALL REVIEWED AND REFUTED. 

The very first word in the title of Professor 
Rail’s book against premillennialism is signifi¬ 
cant. In fact, it furnishes the key to the entire 
production. The author is so full of modern 
thought that the initial word in the name of 
his thesis is modem—“Modern Premillennial¬ 
ism and the Christian Hope.” A truer, better 
title would have been “Modern Higher Criti¬ 
cism vs. Premillennialism — the Christian 
Hope.” 

Our consideration, estimation and review of 
the book will be in the form of a fair, frank 
criticism along the following lines: 1 , Its 
reflection of higher criticism; 2, its misrepre- 
sensation of premillennialism; 3, its defense of 
postmllennialirm. 

We will not pursue the general plan and 
outline of the author. We might, however, 
mention this plan in brief, at least, for the 
benefit of those who have not read the book: 
As Caesar said of ancient Gaul, the book is 
divided into three parts. Part I comprises the 
hope of the kingdom of God in history. Part 

II consists of a direct attack upon premillen¬ 
nialism. Part III contains what the author 
considers the Christian hope of the kingdom 


Rail Reviewed and Refuted 


53 


of God. The first division, therefore, is his¬ 
torical; the second, polemical, and the third, 

apologetic. 

In order to classify the different forms and 
phases of criticism that crop out here and there 
throughout the book, we will group them 
around the following subjects: 

(1) God. 

The history of theological thought has been 
like the pendulum of a great clock in the 
tower house of Time. For each ulterior stroke 
there has been the corresponding rebound. 
One extreme has followed another. By placing 
undue emphasis upon divine imminence, mod¬ 
ern thought has swung to the opposite extreme 
of deism. The present tendency is undoubtedly 
toward pantheism. The following quotations 
will show how completely Professor Rail has 
been taken in the meshes of modern thought. 
‘'God’s control,” he asserts, “is not external. 
God’s gift is not some external force, some¬ 
thing that is not ourselves” (p. 210). Again 
be says: “God gives his gifts not from without, 
but through man’s own activity” (p. 2 11). 
He speaks of God’s relation to the world as 
one “who reigns supreme within it” (p. 172). 
But Paul refers to God who is before all, above 
all and over all, as well as in all and through all. 
(Rom. 0:5; Eph. 4:6.) Rail and Paul evi¬ 
dently do not agree. We prefer the Apostle 
Paul to the Professor Rail. It is a very easy 


54 Posimillennialism and The Higher Critics 

step from extreme imminence to pantheism. 
Listen to Rail: “We do not worship some 
remote being who hands down a message from 
the distant heavens, or reaches down now and 
then to work some miracle. He is an indwell¬ 
ing God” (p. 218). “God the Spirit in him 
ceases to be another and becomes his own self” 
(p. 219). This is nearly as pantheistic as 
the statement of R. J. Campbell, “My God is 
my better self.” It is almost equal to the 
Hindu who identifies the Atman and the Brah¬ 
man (self and God). Once more: Rail ex¬ 
pressly declares, “God does not work from 
outside” (p. 233). “What men call evolution,” 
he further affirms, “is God’s shaping power 
working in Nature to make his universe” (p. 
231). Here he confounds formative creation 
with originative creation. Professor Rail en¬ 
tertains a poor view of transcendence. “By 
the transcedence of God we do not mean that 
separation of God from the world which we 
have repudiated, nor the idea that God works 
from without or apart from men—God is more 
than the sum of all human effort” ( p. 226). 
What a poor, pitiful view of the transcendence 
of God! God interpenetrates all, but is mixed 
with none. He is separate from all in His indi¬ 
vidual nature, but not separate from all in His 
presence. He is no part of the sum of all 
human effort and the sum is no part of God. 


Rail Reviewed and Refuted 55 

Professor Rail is also unscriptural in his 
view of the universal Fatherhood of God (pp. 
47,67, 68). 

(2) Christ. 

The critics no longer hesitate to criticize 
Christ. Rail is no exception to the rule. He 
maintains that Christ was mistaken in regard 
to the time and manner of the Second Advent. 
The following quotations from his book clearly 
define the professor's position on the question: 
“These things, Jesus declared, would happen 
within a generation. Later he declared that 
He Himself must suffer and die, but that He 
would return to His disciples" (p. 57). “Jesus 
used the language and thought forms of His 
day" (p. 60 ). “There is nothing to suggest 
that Jesus held other than the current ideas 
of His age in regard to matters of history, 
science and the life" (p. 71). “Apparently 
Jesus expected in the near future some great 
manifestation of the power of God which would 
bring in the kingdom" (p. 69). Now, get the 
culmination, the ultimatum of the professor’s 
critical view as he makes bold to say: “First 
of all, we consider the fact that Jesus’ ex¬ 
pectation was not fulfilled in the form in which 
he held it" (p. 70). Rail goes on to tell his 
readers that they need not be surprised. "We 

need not wonder, then," he says, “that in the 
matter of time, and even in that of manner, 


58 PostmillenniaSism and The Higher Critics 

the outworking of events did not fulfill what 
was apparently the expectation of Jesus” (p. 
7\). 

From the foregoing we infer that there is 
no need to wonder at what a full-fledged post- 
millennial higher critic may say. Modern 
thought (mirabile dictu) unblushingly claims 
that Christ was mistaken. But might it not 
ibe possible that higher critics and postmillen- 
nialists are mistaken instead of Christ? Thanks 
to high heaven that the premillennialists, with 
all their faults, are not so hard pressed for 
argument that they are compelled to criticise 
Christ! 


(3) The Bible. 

Professor Rail’s book abounds with slings 
and slurs at the authority and inspiration of 
the Holy Scriptures. Let us note carefully 
what he has to say in regard to the Bible. He 
insists that plain history has disproven the 
infallibility of the letter of Scripture (p. 70). 
He scouts the idea of treating the Bible as a 
textbook of theology (p. 28). He believes 
that even the New Testament has been so 
the Apocalyptic discourse of Jesus unreliable 
(pp. 58, 59). This is the nefarious method 
changed, modified and amplified as to render 
employed by postmillennial critics to nullify 
the great sermon of Christ on the signs of the 
second advent! 


Rail Reviewed and Refuted 57 

Professor Rail represents, or rather misrep¬ 
resents, Christ as treating the Old Testament 
in a rough and ready, rationalistic, irreverent 
manner, choosing this, passing by that and 
.setting aside the other (p. 61). Rail, like the 
rest of them, entertains the critical view of 
divine revelation. He says, “Revelation is not 
the supernatural communication of a collection 
of facts and doctrines contained in an infallible 
book” (p. 72). He charges the premillennial 
theory of the Bible as being crude, false, me¬ 
chanical, arbitrary and violent. But the mod¬ 
ern conception of the Bible, in his opinion, 
is vital and historical. “It sees,” he declares, 
“not words dropped down from heaven, but 
a great collection of writings from many ages 
coming up out of the deepest life of mankind” 
(p. 128 ). Think of it! The Bible did not come 
down from God to men and through men, but 
came up from man! Man came up from the 
monkey and the Bible came up from the man! 
Yes, this is modern thought with a vengeance! 
As premillennialists, we are glad that “our rock 
is not as their rock, even our enemies them¬ 
selves being judges.” 

Rail specifically declares: “Revelation is not 
a doctrine of God handed down.” But the 
higher criticism he teaches is a doctrine of man 
handed down from the German rationalists. 
He does not want God to hand him down a 
doctrine, but he will gladly $$ize the dogma 


58 Foslmillenmalism and Tha Higher Critics 

handed down by the Dutch-cheese theologians! 
He does not care to waste time in studying 
scriptural verses on the millennium. In reply 
to Dr. J. M. Gray’s proof texts, he bluntly 
says: “To study these citations seriously would 
be a waste of time” (p. 141). Of course, but 
it would be no waste of time to study the 
latest production of modern thought! Again 
and again the author condemns verbal inspira¬ 
tion. He refers to it as “the unhistorical and 
mechanical theory of verbal inspiration” (p. 
169). “The leadership of the church,” he de¬ 
clares, “almost everywhere holds a saner, a 
more historical and spiritual view of the Bible” 
(p. 170). He says that the premillennialists, 
by insisting upon the inspired and therefore 
infallible letter, places all the Bible essentially 
on the same level” (p. 177). Here the pro¬ 
fessor is guilty of the fallacy of a non sequlhir. 
It does not follow that because all the Bible 
is equally inspired, all the Bible is equally 
important. He continues his flings at infalli¬ 
bility. He declares that the infallible letter, 
if we had it, would of itself be dead and im¬ 
potent. “They have forgotten the living Spirit,” 

he adds (p. 195). But he must remember 
that the Spirit does not work contrary to the 
written Word which He inspired. 

Professor Rail degrades and discredits the 
Old Testament. In tracing the history of the 

kingdom hope in Israel, he claims that the Old 


Rail Reviewed and Refuted 59 

Testament Scriptures contain two contradic¬ 
tory tendencies concerning God, the kingdom, 
the judgment and the social hope. Think of 
the Old Testament teaching two different views 
of God! A local, national Jewish God and a 
universal, spiritual God! Think of the Old 
Testament teaching a narrow, political, earthly, 
Judaic religious tendency on the one hand, 
and a universal, ethical, spiritual religious 
tendency on the other! Yet this is Rail’s view 
of the matter (pp. 26 , 32, 36). Worse and 
more of it. Professor Rail declares that the 
Old Testament knows nothing of the doctrines 
of heaven, hell, immortality, the final judg¬ 
ment, the individual hope and the resurrection! 
“The Old Testament, with no conception of 
a general resurrection and judgment, has no 
doctrine of heaven or hell except as the latter 
is suggested by Isa. 66:24 and Dan. 12:2. 
It knows simply an underworld or sheol mis¬ 
translated hell in the Old Version), the place 
where the departed maintain their shadowy 
existence” (p. 50). We maintain that the 
Resurrection, in spite of what the critics say, 
is taught in the Old Testament. (See Hos. 
13: 14; Isa. 26: 19; Dan. 12: 2.) Immortality 
is also taught. (Gen. 25:8; Gen. 35: 18, 29; 
Job 14: 14; Ps. 90: 10; Eccl. 12: 7.) Hell is 

also taught in the Old Testament (Ps. 9:17; 
Ps. 139: 8; Isa. 5: 14; Isa. 14: 9; Prov. 7: 27; 
Deut. 32:22; Job 26 : 6; Prov. 15: 11; Asne# 


SO Postmillennialism and The Higher Critics 

9:2). The Old Testament teaches the second 
coming of Christ, the critics to the contrary 
notwithstanding. The postmillennial critics 
claim that “the second advent of Christ is a 
revelation made many centuries after the 
prophets had ceased speaking and writing” 
(George P. Eckman). Many of the Old Tes¬ 
tament prophecies refer to the second advent 
(Isa. 2:17,19; Jer. 23:5; Job 19:25,27; 
Ps. 102:16; Ps. 98; 9; Zech. 14:4,9; Dan. 
7: 13, 14.) 


Remember that Professor Rail claims that 
the doctrines of heaven, hell, the millennium, 
the immortality of the soul, all arose out of 
the apocryphal and apocalyptic period after 
the Hebrew prophets of the Old Testament had 
passed away. But the apocalyptists did not 
create these doctrines. They are all contained 
in the Old Testament. Millennial conditions 
are plainly pictured in Isa. 65: 17-25. 


(4) The Prophets. 


Professor Rail approves and appropriates a 
paragraph from R. H. Charles’ Eschatology 
which boldly affirms that Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 
Haggai and Zechariah were all mistaken in 
regard to the immediate coming of the Messi¬ 
anic kingdom (p. 189). 


(5) Paul and John. 

The inspired prophets are not only passed 
up by these modern postmillennialists, but even 


61 


Rail Reviewed and Refuted 

the Apostles are taken as targets for their pol¬ 
ished shafts of rationalistic criticism. Professor 
Rail says of the Apostle Paul: ‘‘He believed, 
first of aU, that the visible return of Jesus and 
the dav/n of the new age were very near; not 
all would die before His coming, he tells the 
Corinthians, and at first at least he counts him¬ 
self among those who expect to see the return, 
though later recognizing the possibility of his 
death intervening” (pp. 75, 76). He gives a 
number of proof texts. But if we treated them 
like he treated Dr. Gray’s citations, we would 
say that it would be a waste of time to seriously 
study them. However, we have more rever¬ 
ence and respect for the Bible than to make 
such a statement. We do not believe with the 
critics that the day of proof texts is passed. 
Rail and Snowden oppose the premillennialists 
for giving proof texts and yet both of them 
pile up texts to prove their own points. Have 
they forgotten that consistency is a jewel? 

Professor Rail affirms that in the Fourth 
Gospel the apocalyptic aspect passes out of 
sight; that Christ’s return, resurrection, judg¬ 
ment, life and death are already present (p. 
87). Concerning the Revelation of John, he 

said: “It must, therefore, be studied and 
understood as an apocalyptic writing” (p. 91) . 
He practically uncanonizes the book of Reve¬ 
lation and classifies it with the Jewish Apoca- 


62 Postmiifennialkm and The Higher Critics 

lypses. In this connection, let us state that 
we happen to know that the correspondence 
school at Emory University, our own Southern 
Methodist University, is taking this same atti¬ 
tude toward the book of Revelation. Woe 
worth the day! We badly need a regular house 
cleaning in most of the theological schools of 
this country^ We must call a halt on higher 
criticism or hell will hold high carnival! 

If Rail is correct, John’s expectation failed. 
“The immediate future,” he declares, “brought 
no fall of Rome as the seer of the book of 
Revelation expected” (p. 187). How does 
Rail know that John expected the fall of Rome 
in the immediate future? Christ corrected the 
mistakes of those who thought that the King¬ 
dom of God would immediately appear. (Luke 
19: 11.) 

Paul was not deceived in regard to the imme¬ 
diate coming of Christ. He corrected the mis¬ 
take of the Thessalonians along this line. He 
says: “That day shall not come, except there 

come a falling away first, and that man of sin 
be revealed, the son of perdition.” (II. Thess. 
2:3.) Dr. S. D. Gordon answers the question 
—“How can the Book speak of the Coming 
being near when it is now nineteen centuries 
since the word was spoken”—by saying, “It 
has always been a possible thing in every gen- 


RafI Reviewed «r*d Refuted 63 

eration since, that these things would occur in 
that generation.” (Quiet Talks on Our Lord’s 
Return p. 170.) 

RALL MISREPRESENTS THE 
FREMILLENNIALISTS 

We will not invade the sacred precincts of 
motive and accuse the author of wilfully and 
intentionally misrepresenting the doctrine of 
premillennialism. The author, it seems, has 
unfortunately taken a few extreme statements 
from a few premillennialists and has tried in 
vain to make these “garbled extracts” repre¬ 
sent all premillennialists on all questions. A 
very unwise thing, indeed, for a*ny author to do. 

Professor Rail fails to correctly present the 
premillennial position on the following points: 

(1) He claims that premillennialism “is not 
one doctrine, but a whole outline of theology” 
(p. 1'09). It is a doctrine of salvation, he 
asserts. We must meet this with a flat denial. 
A man may be saved without being a premil- 
lennialist. Premillennialism is a single doctrine 
within itself, but it is related to other doctrines. 

(2) He makes the charge that premillen¬ 
nialism is primarily pessimistic as to the present 
age; that this pessimism is purely a dogmatic 
position (pp. 110, 111). The premillennialist 
is neither a pessimist nor an optimist. He is 
rather a pessimistic optimist or an optimistic 


64 Pcctmillennialisra and The Higher Critics 

pessimist. Pure pessimism is not one of the 
essential elements of premillennialism. A pre- 
millennialist may be an optimist, and a post- 
millennialist may be a pessimist. The premil- 
lennialists do not believe that all the world 
will be converted before Christ comes. If this 
constitutes pessimism, then the Bible itself is 
pessimistic. (Luke 18:8; Matt. 13:40.) Pro¬ 
fessor Rail charges the chiliasts as teaching that 
“the world is evil and is growing worse because 
God has determined this as his plan” (p. 112). 
The most ultra-Calvinist would deny this alle¬ 
gation. If Professor Rail were to make this 
charge concerning the Methodist premillennial- 
ists it would entitle him to a lifetime member¬ 
ship in the Ananias Club. 

3) Premillenni&l Militarism: Talk about 
Christ as a “warrior king,” “an oriental mon¬ 
arch,” a “vengeful militaristic chief” with a 
“militaristic scheme of salvation”! Who ever 
heard of the like? If Professor Rail has rightly 

interpreted premillennialism, that is what it 
teaches. But he has evidently misconstrued, 
misunderstood or misrepresented the premillen- 
nial view on this question. Premillennialism 
does not teach that the Jews will be saved by 
an external, physical, sovereign, unconditional 
and irresistible salvation. It does not repre¬ 
sent Christ as a vengeful, blcod-bespattered 


Rail Reviewed and Refuted 


65 


monarch of the Old World. The postmillen- 
nialists cannot hope to gain anything by setting 
the premillennialists in a false light on this 
subject. Let us have fair play in the polemical 
arena and an open forum of controversy! 
Millennial salvation is not unconditional. A 
Calvinist may be a full-fledged postmillennialist, 
and an Arminian may be an out-and-out pre- 
millennialist. 

The Bible teaches divine punishment. There 
is coming a day of righteous retribution. “The 
great day of his wrath is come and who shall 
be able to stand.” (Rev. 6: 17.) God will not 
tolerate evil forever. He is a God of infinite 
justice. 

When Christ comes, the incorrigible wicked 
will be banished with everlasting destruction. 
(II. Thess. 1: 7, 8.) The Jews who are living 
up to their measure of light when Christ comes 
will be converted on the terms of the Gospel 
—by repentance and faith. Away, then, with 
a militaristic scheme of salvation! 

(4) The Millennium-— -a Jewish State: Pro¬ 
fessor Rail charges the premillennialists as 
teaching that the millennium is a mere, earthly, 
political, Jewish state (p. 21). Be it far from 
us! We do not teach that the apocalyptic, 
eschatological kingdom v/ill be a British em¬ 
pire, a Prussian autocracy, a French republic, 


G6 Postmilknm&Hsm and The Higher Critics 

an American democracy, or a Jewish state. 
It will be one grand, glorious theocracy the 
world over. We do not teach the restoration 
of the Jewish religion, but the restoration of 
the Jews. We do not teach, as Rail falsely 
charges, that the old Jewish sacrifices will be 
restored and continued during the millennium. 
If restored at all, they will be restored before 
the millennium, but will have no place after 
the inauguration of the millennial kingdom. 
Hence there will be no restoration of the 
nationalism which Jesus repudiated and the 
ceremonialism which Paul denounced. The 
postmillennialists are continually misrepresent¬ 
ing the premilllennialists on this particular 
point. They ought to realize that it is one 
thing to ridicule a doctrine and quite another 
thing to refute it. They are good at the former, 
and a failure at the latter. Professor Rail 
plainly contradicts himself in this connection. 
He does not seem to grasp the idea that the 
millennial kingdom can be both spiritual and 
visible at one and the same time. He says: 
‘There is only one kingdom (rule) of Christ, 
and that is the rule of an indwelling and con¬ 
trolling spirit” (p. 124). But on page 85 of 
his book, speaking of the kingdom, he says: 
“But the phrase is capable of many mean¬ 
ings.” Only one kingdom, and yet the phrase 
is capable of many meanings. If this is not 


Rail Reviewed and Refuted 67 

a plain, palpable contradiction, then what does 
it take to constitute one? 

(5) Premillennialism and the Bible: Pro¬ 
fessor Rail levels one of his criticisms against 
the premillennial use of the Bible. He declares 
that the premillennial theory of the Bible is 
crude, false, mechanical, dualistic and intel- 
lectualistic (p. 12 7). All this, simply because 
the premillennialists insist upon plenary inspi¬ 
ration and the infallibility of the Holy Scrip¬ 
tures. He defines what he calls the mechanical 
theory of inspiration: ‘The Spirit is an external 
force that overrides and compels the human 
spirit” (p. 129). Again we must deny the 
allegation. No accredited premillennialist 
teaches that the Spirit overrides the human 
spirit. This is another instance of Rail’s over¬ 
reaching the mark, at which he is an adept. 

(6) Premillenmalism and Democracy: Pro¬ 
fessor Rail says that modern Adventism de¬ 
clares that the hope of democracy is vain and 
that it is false as an ideal (pp. 150, l5l). Let 
us add, so far as saving the world is concerned. 
He again says that “the premillennial ideal 
for the future of humanity is not democracy, 
but autocracy” (p. 152). No; not autocracy, 
but theocracy. 

Professor Rail declares that democracy “is 
less a political form and more a great ideal 
resting upon moral principles”( p. 150). It 


OS Postmillennialism and The Higher Critics 

is not democracy itself to which premillen- 
nialism is opposed, but democracy magnified 
beyond its proper bounds. It is opposed to 
the modern postmillennial deification of de¬ 
mocracy. The postmillennialists have exagger¬ 
ated democracy almost to the point of denomi¬ 
nating it the dawn of the millennium itself. 

We grant that this undue overvaluation of 
democracy has doubtless caused some promi¬ 
nent premillennialists to say some extreme 
things apparently in the depreciation of de¬ 
mocracy. But premillennialism itself is not 
necessarily antagonistic to democracy. It can- 
rot and does not believe that democracy will 
bring the millennium. The millennial rule will 
be in the form of a great democratic theocracy. 
Those who reign with Christ on the earth (Rev. 
5: 10) during the millennium will have more 
privileges and prerogatives, and will enjoy 
more freedom than is now vouchsafed by the 
most democratic forms of government in the 
world. A man may even be a Jeffersonian 
Democrat, an Arminian Methodist and a full- 
fledged premillennialist all at the same time. 

(7) Premillennialism and Social Reforms: 

There is no need for Professor Rail or any 
other higher critic to try to make it appear 
that premillennialists are opposed to soclaH 
reforms. The premillennialists have done more 


Rail Reviewed and Refuted 69 

for social reform than all the postmillennialists 
put together. The postmillennialists enthusi¬ 
astically grab at every new movement and 
expect it to usher in the millennium. The 
premillennialists, on the other hand, do not 
expect the millennium until Jesus comes to 
inaugurate it. They do not believe that the 
so-called new democracy, the British Labor 
Party, the Federal Council of Churches, the 
League of Nations and the Four-Power Pact 
can convert the whole world, incarcerate the 
devil, restore Edenic innocence and bring in 
the thousand years reign of universal right¬ 
eousness. 

The premillennialists are not opposed to the 
good work of the postmillennialists, but to 
their wild vagaries and unwarranted conclu¬ 
sions. Is one to be put down as opposed to 
prohibition simply because he says that pro¬ 
hibition will not bring the millennium? “It 
will help to (bring it,” it may be said. Yes, 
all the combined moral movements of earth 
will only help to bring it. But only the per¬ 
sonal coming of Christ can really and truly 
bring it. 

(8) Premillennialism and the State: Pro¬ 
fessor Rail says: “The state aims at the union 
of all for the welfare of each. It is thus in 
God’s intent as truly sacred, as truly a part 
of His rule.on earth, as is the home or church” 
(p. 157). Then he pitches in on the dualism 


70 Pc»trnslle7inialism and The Higher Critics 

which underlies premillennialism. But how 
about the monism which underlies modern 
postmillennialism ? The critics have endeav¬ 
ored to blot out the line of distinction between 
the sacred and secular. Jesus drew this line, 
never to foe obliterated, when He said: ‘‘Render 
unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and 
unto God the things that are God’s.” Let 
Rail rave at the dualism of these words of 
the Master! With all due respect to the State, 
it is not as sacred, and is not as truly a part 
of His rule on earth as is the home or the 
church. But Professor Rail very shrewdly and 
evasively sajs, “In God’s intent.” Certainly 
God intends the State to be sacred and a part 
of His rule on earth. But when will that be? 
John, the Apocalyptist, whom Rail criticizes, 
points to the time when this consummation 
will be actually realized. “When the kingdoms 
of this world shall become the kingdom of the 
Lord and His Christ.” (Rev. It: 15.) The 
present condition of civilization certainly does 
not resemble the millennium very much, when 
one man out of twelve was held cd or rcbbc.d 
in New York City last year. We may speak of 
a Christian nation, but it is only in the nominal 
and not in the real sense of the word. 

(9) Premillennialism and the Church: Pro¬ 
fessor Rail has already indicted the premillen- 
nialists as being sworn enemies to scholarship, 


V.- f 'S. i j / t ■ 

Rail Reviewed and Refuted 71 

democracy, social reform and the Christiai 
State. He comes at last to arraign them for 
‘their supposed hostility toward the church 
itself. He says: “But premillennialism goes 
further. So far from being the agent to sava 
the world, the church itself is to grow increas¬ 
ingly corrupt and end in utter failure” (p. 165). 
“This denunciation of the church,” he asserts, 
“is common to all premillennial groups” (p. 
166). Which church? What church? Does 
he mean the Roman church? Or does he 
mean every church in the world? The premil- 
lennialists have not one single word to say 
against the church. They believe the church 
of Christ is founded upon the rock and that 
the gates of hell shall net prevail against it. 
(Matt. 16: 18.) They distinguish, however, 
between the real invisible church and the dif¬ 
ferent religious denominations constituting the 
visible church. They do not denounce that 
great, invisible, true church of Christ out of 
which there is not a single saint and in which 
there is not a single sinner—that church which 
is composed of all true Christians in all the 
churches in all the world. No, never! But 
they do say some things against Romanism 
and even against Protestantism, so far as it is 

backslidden from true evangelical Christianity. 
If this is treason, then make the most of it! 

Premillennialists do not dance to the music 


72 Postmiilennialism tilatl Tlie Higher Critics 

of postmillennialists when the latter say: “We 
are going' to win the whole world for Christ 
and bring in the millennium with a hop, a skip 
and a jump.” We beg pardon, but we are 
from Missouri on this proposition. The post¬ 
millennialists will have to show us. We are 
not against the church, but we are against the 
idea that the church is going to win the whole 
world before Christ comes. We believe that 
Jesus was correct when he said that the wheat 
and tares would grow together until the end 
of the world (age). Are we to be bawled out 
as enemies of the church because we believe 
the Bible? 

The Christian Hope of the Kingdom of God. 

We have examined Professor Rail’s book 
on two points—the higher criticism it contains 
and its attack on premillennialism. We will 
now see what he has to say in defense of his 
own theory. He enters first into a lengthy 
discussion of the modern view of Revelation 
and the nature and use of the Bible. He treats 
the Bible not as the inspired record of the 
revealed will of God to man, but as a mere 
historical record of God’s dealings with man, 
or a record of man’s religious experience. He 
looks upon the Bible as a record of the reli¬ 
gious life of the Jews, just like we would look 
upon the history of Methodism as a record 

of the religious life of the Methodists. Hence 


Rail Reviewed and Refuted 


73 


he calls his modern theory the vital-historical 
view of the Scriptures. He believes in the 
predictive element in prophecy after a fashion. 
In other words, the prophets’ message had a 
“meaning for the future” (p. 191). Not a 
description of the future, not a foretelling of 
the future, but a mere meaning for the future. 
This is a mean definition for the great pre¬ 
dictive element in prophecy. He thinks Jere¬ 
miah was mistaken. He declares: “What 
Jeremiah had in mind certainly did not take 
place after the lapse of the seventy years” 
(p. 192). He gives a page or two under the 
caption, “I Believe in the Holy Ghost” (p. 
194). It is a good thing he takes particular 
pains to reaffirm his personal belief in this 
part of the Apostles’ Creed. Otherwise we 
would be at a loss to know whether he really 
did believe in the Holy Ghost. But he evi¬ 
dently does not believe that the Holy Ghost 
infallibly inspired the holy prophets. He dis¬ 
cusses the nature of the kingdom of God. He 
admits in this connection that the phrase 
“kingdom of God” may sometimes mean “the 
realm over which God rules, but its primary 
and most common sense is simply the rule of 
God.” “This rule of God,” he continues, “is 
of a two-fold character” (p. 203). Earlier 
in his book, to which we have already called 
attention, he affirms: “There is only one king- 


74 FcstpailiermSalism rnd The Higher Critics 

dom (rule) of Christ” (p. 124). He evidently 
contradicts himself, or makes an unwarranted 
distinction between the kingdom of God and 
the kingdom of Christ. How is this, then, for 

dualism ? 

Professor Rail believes with the University 
of Chicago that we make our own millennium, 
not only in a moral sense, but so far a$ the 
transformation of the outer world is concerned. 
He grants that “One of the elements in the 
Old Testament view of the coming day of 
God’s rule is that it will bring a transformed 
earth. Not only will there be abundance of 
harvests, but Nature herself will be trans¬ 
formed. Waste places will become fertile, 
desert lands will be transformed by springs 
and streams of water. The beasts will lose 
their ferocity and will dwell together in peace, 
and man will enjoy length cf life” (p. 210). 
He frankly admits that Jesus endorsed this 
view of the Old Testament. “Undoubtedly 
Jesus, like the prophets, believed that in the 
new world of God’s consummated rule Nature 
would be changed, sickness and suffering would 
be gone” (p. 66). Now comes the “most 
unkindest cut of all.” He rejects the view of 
Ckrist and the prophets in regard to the re¬ 
newed earth and declares that “the new world 
of Nature is not coming by some miraculous 
transfroming force. Step by step it comes 


Rgll Reviewed arid Refuted 


75 


through the activity of man and in three way's 

—the mind of man, the industry of man, the 
co-operation with fellow men” (pp. 211. 
2 12). He boastfully adds: “We have literally 
changed deserts to gardens in areas far exceed¬ 
ing that indicated by Ezekiel” (p. 212). 

Professor Rail emphasizes education as one 
of the special means of bringing in the king¬ 
dom of God. He virtually says that we are 
saved through education. “The method of God 
is that of education. To contrast education and 
regeneration is to put asunder what God has 
joined together. Education is life-giving and 
not simply imparting facts” (p. 220). 

It is amusing to note how many methods 
the postmillennialists are employing to bring 
in the millennium—irrigation of arid lands, 
labor unions, social programs, civic improve¬ 
ment, soap, soup and sunshine, democracy, 
disarmament, education and the institutional 
church. Professor Rail, of course, recognizes 
the church as the chief instrument for realizing 
the kingdom of God on earth. He charges 
that “it is the visible church which premillen- 
nialists repudiate as an nstrument for building 
up the kingdom of God upon earth, and cr 
which they predict present and increasing 
corruption to end in total failure” (p. 225). 
Again we must deny Professor Rail’s accusa¬ 
tion. The premillennialists do not repudiate 


76 Postmillenni&Ikm and The Higher Critics 

the visible church. They do not say that it 
will end in total failure. They contend that 
it will carry the gospel to the whole world, 
that it will give all an opportunity of accept¬ 
ing Christ, that it will be instrumental in pre¬ 
paring the millions who will be ready to meet 
Christ when He comes in the clouds of heaven 
to meet His bride. They do say, however, that 
the church will not convert the entire world 
and inaugurate the millennium by the present 
gospel agencies. They do not repudiate the 
church, tout they do repudiate the postmillen- 
nial view of the mission of the church. The 
church will not fail, but postmillennialism will 
fail. It is difficult for Rail to correctly repre¬ 
sent the premillennial view of things. H$ 
seems to think that a repudiation of postmil¬ 
lennialism is a repudiation of the church. He 
admits that there are elements of truth in pre- 
millennialism. He sums them up as the em¬ 
phasis on the transcendental idea of God, the 
emphasis on the idea of God as the God of 
history and of nations, the insistence upon the 
fact of evil and that there is room for crises 
in the overthrow of evil and the establishment 
of the good. He also admits the strength of 
its appeal to the letter of the Bible, and its. 

dramatic appeal to faith and imagination. He 
might have added that it also appeals to com¬ 
mon sense, reason and intelligence. Professor 


Rail Reviewed and Refuted 


77 


Rail claims that the hoary confessions of faith, 
the creeds of Christendom, the scholarship of 
the world and great leaders like Luther, Calvin 
and Wesley are on his side of the question. 

He says: “It would be hard to find in the 
world of scholarship today a recognized the¬ 
ologian or Biblical student of the first rank 
who stands on this side” (premillennial). He 
quotes the statement made by Prof. J. H. 
Snowden that there were only eight premil- 
lennialists out of two hundred and thirty-six 
members of seminary faculties of eight denomi¬ 
nations that responded to his questionaire. 
Then comes along Dr. George P. Mains and 
shouts: “Scholarship will triumphantly close 
the debate.” But hold a minute. Another pro¬ 
fessor sent out a questionaire, J. H. Leuba, 
professor of psychology in Bryn Mawr College, 
Pennsylvania, and interrogated fifty-five hun¬ 
dred scientists. Upon the answers he received 
he asserts that the majority of these prominent 
scientists do not believe in a personal God and 
in personal immortality. Will Rail, Snowden 
and Mains accept the dictum of scholarship on 
these subjects? Talk about scholarship closing 
the debate! This so-called modern Germanized 
scholarship will close the door of salvation, 
heaven, hell and everything else! 

Professor Rail thinks that Calvinism does not 
imply premillennialism, but that premillennial- 


78 ' Postmittennialism and Tke Higher Critics 

ism involves Calvinism. This is getting the 
question down to a fine point. But the fact 
remains, regardless of Rail’s distinctions, that 
if one can be a Calvinist without being a pre- 
millennialist, one may be a premillennialisi 
without being a Calvinist. 

Rail’s book ought to be operated on for 
appendicitis. The appendix is not sound. It is 
devoted to the task of trying to prove that 
John Wesley was a postmillennialist, or that 
he was not a premillennialist. Why is Professor 
Rail so anxious to claim that Wesley is on 
his side? He does not accept Wesley on the 
question of higher criticism who referred to it 
as the “spawn of hell.” 

It is a pity that Rail’s book is placed in 
the course of study for young Methodist 
preachers to masticate, digest and assimilate. 
There is this hope, however. It is so rank 
and unreasonable that it may cause a reaction 
toward premillennialism. 

This final word and our review of Professor 
Rail’s book is finished. The following, stated 
in brief, seems to have been the three-fold 
object of the author: To prove, to improve 
and to disprove. To prove postmillennialism; 
to improve the orthodox evangelical view of 
the Scriptures, and to disprove premillennialism. 
He has signally, failed in all three attempts. He 
appoves of the postmillennia! view but he does 


Rail Reviewed and Refuted 


79 


not prove the theory to ibe correct. The argu¬ 
ments offered in its support are inconclusive. 
He does not improve on what the critics call the 
traditional view of the Bible. He only proves 
that he himself is a higher critic. He reproves 
the premillennialists; but he does not disprove 
premillennialism, 


Andrew Johnson. 


Chapter IV 

PROFESSOR RALL'S TEACHING 

We have been interested in reading Modem 
PremlilenrJalkm by Professor H. F. Rail. That 
he is a scholar of rank goes without question. 
That he catches some gleams of scriptural truth, 
is manifest; that he works under certain good 
impulses is conceded. Yet he reminds one of a 
blind man groping for the light. He confirms 
Paul’s word that the world by even its schol¬ 
astic wisdom knew not God. He has fallen 
victim to an erroneous system of man-made 
philosophy, which shuts out the light of Heav¬ 
en’s true inspiration. We may not cumber 
these pages with lengthy quotations, though we 
shall be careful to not misrepresent his teach¬ 
ings. 

l. He rejects what he is pleased to call 
“infallible inspiration. He says, “What is im¬ 
portant for us to see is that such conclusions 
stamp as false the theory of verbal inspiration 
which makes them necessary and on which pre- 
millennialism rests.” “The theory of verbal in¬ 
spiration, so far from being the mark of high 
orthodoxy, is the refusal of the authority of 
Jesus and the denial of the God and Father of 
our Lord Jesus Chirst” (pp. 136, 13 7). Again 
he says,“The theory of verbal inspiration makes 


81 


Professor Rail's Teaching 

all parts of the Old Testament equally true and 
valid. The result is that Judaistic character, 
which so strongly marks premillennialism.” 
(Ibid). He condemns premillennialists for 
their “ideas of literal inspiration.” (p.16). 

In reply to the above, I would say that inspir¬ 
ation of any kind, “verbal,” “literal,” or “in¬ 
fallible,” all of which he here condemns, does 
not make all parts of the Old Testament or of 
the New of equal value. It does, however, 
stamp them as true, but many truths have dif¬ 
fering values. The story of Jonah and the Ten 
Commandments may be equally true, without 
having the same inherent importance. They 
have unequal significance, and yet each has its 
place in the record inspired of God. 

The Bible as a whole is the Word of God, and 
every part thereof is necessary to the comple¬ 
tion of the whole. In the construction of a 
building we need many materials, without which 
the building cannot be completed, and yet the 
various parts have not the same financial or 
intrinsic value. As in the body I might lose an 
ear, a finger, or a toe and not suffer so much in¬ 
convenience as in the loss of a leg or an eye, and 
yet I cannot be a complete or perfect man with¬ 
out all of these parts. Likewise, the books of 
Esther, Ruth, and Nahum might be eliminated 
from the Bible with far less moral loss than to 
have the Acts of the Apostles or the Gospel by 


82 Pcstmillennialism and TIse Higher Criti«s 

John cut out. Still, not one of these can be 
expunged from the Canon without loss. All 
have their place and their value in the book 
inspired of God; but they do not have equal 
moral and spiritual significance. Premillen- 
nialists are not forced, as Mr. Rail charges, to 
receive “the husks as well as the kernel.” 
Lovers of premillennialism know how to accept 
and properly value the different books of the 
Bible. The question is, “Do the postmillen- 
nialists really accept the Bible as a book of 
God?” In most of their recent writings is 
there not a disposition to eliminate the divine, 
and leave us but the husks of human invention ? 

We have been reading a volume of sermons 
by professors in the Chicago University. While 
these men say many beautiful things concerning 
the Bible, I have not yet discovered among 
them a single acknowledgment of the Bible 
as a book sent of God. They treat it 
as though it were purely a human product— 
the work of an Isaiah (two of them, indeed), 
an Ezekiel, a Paul, a Luke, and other writers; 
but not once have they given the stamp of 
their approval to the old idea of God as the 
author of the books of the Bible. This is the 
position of most postmillennialists. Their esti¬ 
mate of the books of the Bible is that they 
are all purely human. According to these 
writers, Paul spake his mir;d, John gave mat¬ 
ters as he saw them, Matthew and Mark set 


Pro fees or Rail’s Teaching 


83 


forth their estimate of Jesus and His works; 
tout all these biblical writers are treated as men 
who give only their own views. 

Now, we take sharp issue with this class of 
writers. We do not at all believe that Moses, 
David, Daniel and John set forth their own 
opinions, or wrote merely according to their 
personal discernment. We readily agree with 
Peter when he said that “holy men of God 
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 
(2 Pet. 1:21.) With Paul we say that all scrip¬ 
ture is “given by inspiration of God and is 
profitable.” (2 Tim. 3: 16.) 

Like the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
we contend that God “at sundry times and in 
divers manners spake in time past unto the 
fathers by the prophets.” (Heb. 1: 1.) These 
writers claim to be messengers of heaven, 
spokesmen of God. Their claim is either true 
or false. If they spoke truly, their messages 
are not human, but divine, and should be so 
received; if they spoke falsely, Rail, with the 
other critics, and Bob Ingersoll, with the other 
infidels, are right, and the Bible should be 
thrown into the waste basket. 

The whole question of the authenticity and 
inspiration of the Bible is involved. I, for one, 
am ready to cling to the Bible as the Word of 
the Living God, and to treat its teachings as 
absolutely authoritative and binding. Does 


I 


84 Poslmiilsnnialism and The Higher Critic3 

Mr. Rail do this? He shows no hesitancy in 
criticizing biblical writers. According to his 
teaching, they were mostly illiterate, “not 
scientific,” and in many senses absolutely un¬ 
reliable as teachers. According to Professor 
Rail, the Apostles were affected by their sur¬ 
roundings to such an extent that their writings 
were incomplete, imperfect, being “colored” 
by Judaistic errors. In his discussion of the 
Synoptics we have the following quotation: 
“The writer holds with those who believe that 
we have here a later composition embodying 
sayings of Jesus, perhaps uttered at different 
times even, but amplified and modified. The 
teachings of Jesus were transmitted orally for a 
considerable period before being committed to 
writing. The minds of the disciples were full 
of these apocalyptic ideas and the current 
phrases and images were undoubtedly familiar 
to them. Their attitude is undoubtedly reflected 
in just such a word as Acts 1: 6, little as this 
comports with unquestioned sayings of Jesus. 
Under such conditions ideas are colored in the 
very moment in which they are received. With 
no thought of modification, and simply with 
the effort to make clear the Master’s meaning, 
amplification and addition could easily occur” 
(pp. 58, 59). 

How does this comport with the idea of 
inspiration? If the apostles were under influ- 


85 


Professor Rail’s Teaching 

ences contrary to truth, and fell victims to 
Judaistic error, writing the sayings and deeds 
of Jesus under influences that would “color/' 
and accordingly pervert them, then it is clear 
that the Bible is but a human product, not a 
divine. The faith of our fathers was unfounded, 
the Bible of our hopes is discarded, and the 
infidels are right. Perish such folly! Am I to 
renounce the Bible upon which the hopes of 
the martyrs and saints of the ages was founded ? 
Am I to reject its holy teachings as the Word 
of God and substitute for an inspired Bible a 
hotch-potch of mere human productions? 

Not only were the disciples in error con¬ 
cerning our Lord’s soon coming jbut even Jesus 
Himself was mistaken according to the teach¬ 
ings of this Garrett professor. Hear him fur¬ 
ther: “The message of Jesus, too, must be 
studied not only in the light of the prophets, 
but in that of the apocalyptic thought of the 
day, which is spoken to the same ardent hopes 
of the people and in the forms that were in 
their mind.” “These things, Jesus declared, 
would happen within a generation. Later he 
declared that he himself must suffer and die, 
but that he would return to his disciples. Such 
return he apparently expected in visible form 
and for the purpose of completing his work. 
Thus far we must go and frankly recognize 
the error of earlier students^ who passed over 


8S Potitm’iiennialiafm and The Higher Critics 

so largely this side of Jesus’ message.” “That 
Jesus looked forward to the speedy coming 
of a new age is attested by numerous passages 
scattered throughout the synoptic gospels.” 

“All this gives us no ground for denying 
that Jesus used the apocalyptic framework of 
ideas common to his day, with its thought of 
a new age near at hand to be brought in by 
a deed of God. However, it does forbid our 
detailed dogmatic use of these passages and the 
simple transfer of the current apocalyptic pro¬ 
gram to Jesus” (pp. 58, 59, 60). 

If the above does not absolutely dissolve or 
deny the authority of Jesus, I do not know the 
meaning of words. If Rail is right, Jesus was 
Himself confused as to the question of His 
own personal return and the establishment of 
His kingdom. Jesus was a victim of Jewish 
error, following that to the detriment of His 
own fundamental teaching. When a man 
passes as a minister of the Gospel, as an ex¬ 
pounder of the W'ord of God, as not only a 
preacher but a theological teacher, giving his 
time to the preparation of preachers for their 
ministry and yet rejects the authority of not 
only the Old Testament writers but even of 
the apostles of our Lord and then finally sets 
Jesus before us as a victim of error, I think it 
is full time to burn the Bible or drive such 
teachers from our midst as falsifiers of the truth 


87 


Professor Rail’s Teaching 

cf God. Do these words seem uncharitable? 
Do they sound harsh? Be it so. Our Bible 
stands or falls upon this issue. It is a mere 
human production, or it is a message from 
High Heaven containing the eternal truth of 
the ever-living God. There is no middle 
ground. I am indeed glad that premillennialists 
are not dependent on such teaching or teach¬ 
ers. What may one think of the whole subject 
of inspiration, if the apostolic writers were sub¬ 
ject to Jewish influences in antagonism to Jesus, 
and if even our Lord Himself was mistaken as 
to the future program of His kingdom? 

Professor Rail and others of his way of 
thinking are driven to thus dealing with the 
Word of God by the exigencies of the case. 
His papal dogma of postmillenialism finds no 
support in an inspired Bible. It is absolutely 
contradictory to the teachings of the apostles 
and of the prophets; it is ground to powder by 
the marvelous revelations of Daniel and John. 
To sustain the dogma of postmillennialism 
these modern critics do not hesitate to discredit 
and even discard the writings of Daniel and the 
Apostolic Seer. John and Daniel must be dis¬ 
counted or postmillennialism is doomed. These 
dogmatists do not hesitate in their choice be¬ 
tween postmillennialism and an inspired Bible. 
Accordingly, the Book of Revelation must go. 
If we recognize the Apocalypse as an inspired, 
Yerfcct outline of Judgment Day scenes. Rail’s 


£8 Postmiilennislssm and The Higher Critics 

postmillennial house of cards falls to the ground 
as before a tornado. 

Do 1 seem severe? Then read the following: 
‘•'The use that has been made of the Book of 
Revelation has repelled many people. The 
history of its interpretation is a very museum 
of curiosities. Its apocalypticism no longer 
commends it to thoughtful men, and the hope 
of the Christian church looks forward to a dif¬ 
ferent manner of salvation” (p. 95). Good¬ 
bye, Revelation! Thoughtful men reject you. 
Men of “scientific” scholarship relegate you 
to the limbo of mythological productions. One 
question, however, remains. Whose book has 
been discarded, John’s or God’s? According 
to Professor Rail, John followed erroneous 
leadership, and wrote after the manner of 
Jewish and Greek apocryphal authors. He 
says of the Book of Revelation “that it must 
be studied and understood as an apocalyptic 
writing” (p. 91); that it “makes no claim to 
apostolic authorship,” and adds, “its place in 
the canon was long ago a subject of dispute” 
(p. 89). “The first requirement for the under¬ 
standing of the book is to recognize that it 
belongs to a distinct class of writings, the 
apocalyptic” (p. 90). 

He also says: “The longer apocalyptic pas¬ 
sages of the Gospels probably contain some 
material from this source—the pre-Christian. 


Professor Rail's Teaching 


89 


In Jude we have two distinct references to 
apocalyptic writers. The statement of verse 
9, according to several early church fathers, 
is from the Assumption of Moses, while verses 
14 and 15 give a direct quotation from Enoch” 
(p. 91). 

The careful reader will observe that what 
he calls a quotation from Enoch is accredited 
by Jude to the Enoch who walked with God, 
and was translated. From him we have no 
written book, but the apocryphal book of Enoch 
is dated, according to Mr. Rail, in the first 
half of the first Christian century. Professor 
Rail, therefore, has not done himself justice, 
nor his cause, in trying to palm off words 
attributed by Jude to the patriarchal saint, 
“the seventh from Adam,” as the production 
of an apocryphal writer of a date that was 
very recent in the days of Jude. He further 
says that the purpose of John’s Apocalypse 
“is not predictive but practical” (p. 91). Is 
this true? Let the reader consult carefully 
chapters 19-22, and see if we have not a 
description of the millennium and the “great 
white throne” judgment. Then let him turn 
to the first chapter and see if this is not given 
as a record of things to be. The Garrett pro¬ 
fessor informs us that the Seer of Patinos 
drew the materials of his book “alike from 

Old Testament and the later Jewish apocalyses, 


80 Posimillennialism and The Higher Critics 

using Miis material with freedom aind with 
power” (p. 93). So John did not speak as 
moved by the Holy Ghost, but sought among 
the writings of men materials out of v/hich he 
might compose a book that would give to the 
world his opinions! 

Thank God, premillennalists are not given 
to such juggling with the Word of God. They 
believe its teachings to be revealed from heaven 
and therein they receive for their guidance and 
comfort messages not of men, but of God. 

A sensible writer has said: “Little by little 
the abyss has been dug between the catechism 
of the church and the theology of the school. 
The day is coming when we shall be faced with 
two Bibles—the Bible of the faithful and the 
Bible of the scholar.” 

But since I repudiate the critics so absolutely, 
I am asked what I mean by inspiration. Is 
every word dictated by the Holy Spirit? No. 
This would make the human writer but an 
amanuensis, or even more, an automaton, a 
self-acting typewriter. This is not necessary 
to a real and true inspiration, a veritable mes¬ 
sage from heaven. 

Both the human and the divine enter into the 
preparation of the Bible. This may be illustrated 
by the combination of the humanity and the 
Deity in the person of Jesus Christ. He is 
absolutely God, One with the Eternal Father; 


91 


Professor Rail’s Teaching 

and yet He is “very man,” as truly human, 
barring sin, as writer or reader. 

Or, for further illustration, take the owner 
of a great department store, an exquisitely 
furnished mansion, or a beautiful art gallery. 
Take two up-to-date reporters gifted with de¬ 
scriptive pov/er, and let them go through the 
establishment, chaperoned by its builder. He 
hides nothing; shows and explains to them 
everything. They are asked now to write a 
magazine article setting forth what they have 
seen. All the facts are furnished by the owner; 
the resulting description is the product of the 
reporters. They will not use the same words, 
nor give exactly the same description; never¬ 
theless, each will produce a readable, instruc¬ 
tive and perfectly true descriptive article. The 
inspiration cf the article is from the proprietor; 
the description is the work of the reporter. 
Like unto this, every vision, every truth set 
forth in the (book of Revelation, was given 
to the beloved disciple on the Isle of Patmos. 
The whole conception, the entire book is from 
God. It is clothed in the words of John, he 
setting forth the things which ,he saw and 
heard as a messenger from God. Though de¬ 
livered by the apostle, the message is from 
the capital of the universe, the throne of the 
Eternal. God made the revelation and bade 
John pass on to men the things he saw and 
heard, using his own words. The message is 


02 Postmillennialism and The Higher Critics 

a revelation, is complete, perfect, infallible, 
though not verbal. It is God’s message, though 
humanly expressed. Jesus Christ is “The mighty 
God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of 
Peace” (Isa. 9: 6), though He is “very man,” 
partaker of flesh and blood, one of us. He 
is “God manifest in the flesh.” So is the Bible 
God’s word set forth in human speech. 

Mr. Rail says, “You cannot insist upon an 
imminent visible return on the ground of an 
infallible letter ,when plain history has dis- 
prcven this infallibility” (p. 70). Again he 
says, “Revelation is not the supernatural com¬ 
munication of a collection of facts and doc¬ 
trines contained in an infallible book” (p.72). 

These are very strange utterances from a 
preacher; to him the Bible certainly has small 
authority; it can only contain that which he 
cares to read into it. The Bible not being 
infallible, it cannot speak with supernatural 
power; but if it were the Word of God, it’s 
authority would be divine. Eliminate, the 
divine, the supernatural, the infallible, and the 
Bible must take its place on the shelves with 
the writings of Confucious, of Mohammed, and 
cf world literature. When God speaks it is 
with divine right. Herein Jesus surprised the 
men of His day. He spake with authority, 
and not as the scribes. (Matt. 7:28, 29.) 
Celsus, Porphyry, Voltaire, Tom Paine, Inger- 


Professor Rail’s Teaching 


93 


soil—these and other infidels through the cen¬ 
turies have sought to discount the Bible as 
a divine message, as the Word of God. It 
remains for our age to dress up its infidels 
in clerical garb, place them in our pulpits and 
theological seminaries and put their skeptical 
teachings into the course of study for young 
preachers. 

Eternal shame! 

We are not surprised that a man who would 

A 

thus undermine faith in the Bible should also 
belittle the divine Christ. “First of all, we 
consider the fact” says Rail “that Jesus’ ex¬ 
pectation was not fulfilled in the form in which 
he held it. The kingdom was not consum¬ 
mated within the brief period that he seems to 
have anticipated nor did he return in the man¬ 
ner in which the disciples and apparently he 
himself expected. (Matt. 10:23; 16:28; 24: 
34). Later passages in the New Testament 
indicate what a problem this was for the faith 
of the early church” (p. 70). 

What stuff! Instead of Jesus expecting to 
return in “a brief period” He spoke the parable 
of the nobleman to correct the erroneous ex¬ 
pectation that “the kingdom should immedi¬ 
ately appear” and in the parable of the talents 
His own word is “after a long time the Lord 
of that servant cometh.” (Luke 19; Matt. 2 5.) 


94 Pcstinilleniiidiism ar*d The Higher Critics 

We are not surprised to find on other pages 
that the erratic Rail arrays one biblical writer 
against another. He would have Paul con¬ 
tradict Daniel, John contradict Luke, and Jesus 
contradict them all, even including Himself. 
Speaking of the Gospel of John, Professor Rail 
says “Throughout this gospel the coming war¬ 
rior king is displaced by the present spiritual 
Christ and there is no word about any other 
salvation.” Another assertion is as follows: 

“One other contrast will bring out the thor¬ 
ough-going difference between this gospel and 
the apocalyptic outlook” (p.88). We remem¬ 
ber that he has put John with his Revelation 
in the apocalyptic class. He therefore brings 
John the revelator into contradiction with John 
the author of the Gospel bearing his name. 

And this is nothing uncommon with Rail. He 
makes the Bible to be a perfect jumble of 
incoherent inconsistencies, thereby splitting it 
into fragments. It would seem from Rail’s 
putting to be the production of a coterie of 
spiritual muttonheads rather than of inspired 
men of God. If he is right, we have no Bible 
on which to build our eternal hopes with any 
degree of certainty. 

Professor Rail would deny the premillen- 
nialists any place in the front ranks of real 
Christian leaders. In proof, observe the fol¬ 
lowing: “The apocalyptic temper is usually 


95 


Professor Rail’s Teaching 

a compound of hope and anxiety. The living; 
experience of God is not strong enough to 
sustain it. It rests back upon a world philos¬ 
ophy” (p. 63). We wonder if this writer has 
ever considered the spiritual character, the 
foral power and the eminent faith of many 
premillennial leaders. What about Charles H. 
Spurgeon, preeminent among preachers of the 
nineteenth century? Consider A. J. Gordon, 
perhaps the foremost pastor of any 
American church during the last half century. 
What rank would he give to D. L. Moody? 
Was he not prince among evangelists? What 
about A. B. Simpson and other leaders in lines 
of faith? I have noticed that the best, most 
effective evangelists are practically all premil- 
lennialists. The churches that are resorting to 
picture shows, dramas, musicales, bazaars, 
oyster suppers, billiards—you have likely rec¬ 
ognized, reader, that church men of this type 
take no stock in premillennialism. They are 
going to ‘Take the world for God.” Where do 
you find the empty pulpits? In postmillennial 
churches. Our premillennial Bible schools are 
filled with praying, God-loving students. Let 
the conferences, synods, associations, schools 
and seminaries discard postmillennialism, ban¬ 
ish the higher critics, and preach with all their 

might the premillennial return of Jesus, with 
holiness of heart and life, backing it up with 
all nights of prayer, and you will soon see no 


96 Postmillermialism end 1 he Higher Critics 

shortage of preachers. The pulpits of the home 
land will overflow and the mission fields of the 
world will soon be yielding splendid harvests. 
Postmillennial teaching is cutting the tap-root 
of spirituality and eviscerating the inner life 
of the church. It is largely responsible for the 
dead formalism that is blighting the twentieth 
century church. 

As to prevailing faith, faith that draws on 
heaven and commands the power of God, where 
do you find it? Has postmillennialism in 
all history ever produced a George Muller? 
Look at his marvelous work in the Bris¬ 
tol orphanage; see the thousands fed, 
clothed, educated and trained for service 
to God and humanity through the simple mir¬ 
acle-working faith of this ardent premillen- 
nialist. Postmillennalism does not develop 
moral heroes, men and women of a pre-eminent 
faith. If so, whom would you name? 

Take the great holiness movement of the 
present day, through which thousands are being 
saved and sanctified unto God; through which 
missionaries are pouring into the foreign fields, 
while humble evangelists of God are pressing 
into the highways and the hedges that they 
may save the lost. Look at the leading school 
of this movement, Asbury College, at which 

holiness is believed, professed and taught. 
Here, out of five hundred students, some two 


Professor Rail’s Teaching 


97 


hundred are dedicating their lives to the min¬ 
istry or the mission field. In this and kindred 
schools “the blessed hope of His glorious 
appearing” furnishes an inspiring basis for 
service and self-denial. Postmiilennialism has 
never been known to develop special faith and 
pre-eminent holiness. I do not mean by this 
that no holy people are adherents of this dogma, 
but that it is not calculated to produce the 
type of special piety that honors God. Post- 
millennialists are ritualists, as a rule, from Rome 
to modern Methodists of the high-churchly 
type, who ridicule our Lord’s glorious second 
coming. They are taking God out of the Bible, 
dropping the preaching of hell and judgment 
out of their pulpits, filling the churches with 
unregenerated people, drying up the fountains 
of spiritual power and proposing with an emas¬ 
culated gospel of rosewater religion to save a 
sin-wrecked world ere the return of its only 
Lord and Redeemer. How sad will be their 
awakening in the day of His revelation. 

Were There Two Isaiahs? 

Professor Rail speaks of “the unknown 
prophet whom we call the second Isaiah” (p. 
33). After a quotation from Jeremiah, he says: 
“Side by side with this should be placed the 
message of a second Isaiah concerning the suf¬ 
fering servant” (p. 35). This is quite a fad 
now with the postmillennial higher critics. 
They tell us that the work of the unknown 


23 PcsisTsiiienniaiistn and T1 ?g Higher Critics 


prophet begins with the fortieth chapter, the 
first thirty-nine having been written by the 
true Isaiah; the rest of the book they attribute 
to this unknown author. J'his position is as 
false as the rest of their critical nonsense. It 
absolutely contradicts the plain teaching of 
sundry New Testament writers. 

Running through the New Testament, I hav* 
discovered ten passages attributed to “Isaiah 
the Prophet,’’ all of which quotations come 
after the thirty-ninth chapter of the book. 
These are not credited to some unknown 
author, nor to a second Isaiah, nor to one of 
the Isaiahs. In every case, except the quota¬ 
tion from St. Paul, the credit is given to one 
introduced by the definite article. It is always 
“Isaiah,” “Isaiah the prophet,” or "the prophet 
Isaiah.” 

These credits are divided as follows: Three 
are from Matthew (3:3; 8:17; 12:17,18). 
From Luke we have two (3:4; 4:17,18). 
Then, of course, Luke wrote the Acts. Here 
we have also a quotation (8:28-30). In the 
Book of John we have two references to 
“Isaiah the prophet,” one being made by the 
author of this gospel, the other by John the 
Baptist (1:23; 12:38). From the writings of 
Paul we get two quotations (Rom. 10:16,20). 

From the foregoing we have Matthew, 
Luke, John the Baptist, John the Apostle, and 


99 


Professor Rail's Teaching 

Paul testifying in unmistakable terms that 
“Isaiah the Prophet” wrote that part of the 
book extending beyond the thirty-ninth chap¬ 
ter. We are forced to accept the authority of 
these biblical writers, whom we believe to be 
inspired of God, and to repudiate Rail, Case, 
Snowden, and the rest of their company; or 
wd must reject and repudiate the New Testa¬ 
ment writers and accept the teachings of 
of the Bible of the modem postmillennial and 
these recent super-men, who think their knowl¬ 
edge surpasses that of men whose writings are 
embraced in the canon of Holy Scripture. 
Prernillennialism may have its weaknesses, but 
it is not driven to the repudiation of the Bible 
of our fathers, and the substitution therefor 
of the Bible of the modern postmillennial and 
rationalistic critcs. 

We append the following sensible words on 
this subject taken from Peloubet’s notes, 1922. 
(p. 135): “Was there a second Isaiah? Many 
modern critics assign the last twenty-seven 
chapters of Isaiah to an unknown prophet who 
lived during and after the Exile. These critics 
argue from a difference in language and style, 

from allusions that seem to fit a later date, and 
especially from the mention of Cyrus by name. 
Believers in a single Isaiah point to the many 
resemblances in style between the two parts, 
assert that most great writers change their* 


100 Pcstrmlieimi&Hsm and The Higher Critics 

style during a long life, declare that the proph¬ 
ets write from the viewpoint of ages later than 
their own, that predictive prophecy and divine 
inspiration could reveal the name of Cyrus, 
and that it is inconceivable fthat a prophet 
of the commanding genius of the author of the 
last half of Isaiah could have lived and re¬ 
mained unknown.” 

As to Daniel the Prophet. 

The prophecy known as the Book of Daniel 
was written while he was in exile, a captive 
in Babylon. According to the chronology of 
Archbishop Usher, this book had its beginning 
in the early life and history of the prophet, 
about 606 B. C., and extended to B. C. 534, 
thus covering a long and remarkable period 
in Jewish annals. No purer, nobler or more 
godly man can be found in history, 'either 
sacred or profane. An angel from heaven 
addressed him as “a man greatly beloved.” 
( 10 : 11 .) He was miraculously delivered from 
the lions and stood as a pillar of righteousness 
before the emperor in a polluted pagan court. 
His probity of character, his inflexible purpose, 
his devotion to God and truth commanded the 
respect of all who knew him and even forced 
an unwilling compliment from his persecutors. 
(Dan. 6 : 4, 5.) 

The prophecies of this faithful servant of 
the Most High are being fulfilled before our 
own eyes. They form a great premillennial 


Professor Rail’s Teaching 


10i 


bulwark and are naturally a source of much 
trouble to the postmillennialists and all higher 
critics. Let the writings of Daniel stand un¬ 
impeached and unimpaired; let them stand as 
messages from God through His faithful ser¬ 
vant, given in the sixth century B. C., and 
the vagaries of the postmillennialists are 
doomed. Accordingly, they are largely seeking 
to undermine the prophetic utterances of the 
great Judo-Babylcnian statesman. If Daniel 
spoke in the sixth century before the birth of 
cur Lord, his messages were of necessity in¬ 
spired of God. No man could outline human 
history for twenty-five centuries as did Daniel 
unless he spoke as a representative of Deity. 
The first thing now with the destructive critic 
is to chdingQ the date of the Book of Daniel. 
Accordingly, we have from Rail the following: 
“Daniel is the first great apocalyptic writer, 
placed by scholars generally at the beginning 
of the Maccabean period, in the first part of 
the second century B. C.” (p. 41). Case and 
others of this school place the date of the 
book at 167 B. C. Case says flatly that no 
such man as Daniel ever lived. He declares 
that some unknown writer under the persecu¬ 
tions of Antiochus Epiphanes wrote this book 
to encourage the faith of the Jews in the midst 
of the persecutions they were undergoing. 
He considers the book to be an apocalyptic 

romance, saying that the author laid the plot 


102 Postmilieimiaiism find The Higher Critics 

of his story in the court of Nebuchadnezzar, 
Daniel being the hero of the story. 

If this be true, the vision of Nebuchadnezzar 
and that of Daniel were pure inventions and 
had their fulfillment in the Babylonian, Median, 
Persian and Grecian empires—not touching the 
Roman. The absurdity of this interpretation 
is manifest to anyone who has studied history, 
it is well known that the Babylonian world- 
power was destroyed and superseded, not by 
the Median or Persian kingdoms separately, 
but by a combination of the two, known as 
the Medo-Persian empire, and this is according 
to the record in the Book of Daniel. In inter¬ 
preting the handwriting on the wall of Bel¬ 
shazzar’s palace, Daniel said to the Emperor 
Belshazzar: “Thy kingdom is divided and 
given to the Medes and Persians.” (Dan. 5: 
2 8.) It was not given to one of these kingdoms, 
but to the dual empire composed of both 
Medes and Persians. Throughout their domin¬ 
ion the kingly office alternated between their 
joint rulers, first a Median and then a Persian. 
This world dominion is represented in Nebu¬ 
chadnezzar’s dream by the silver in the image 
and in Daniel’s vision by the bear with three 
ribs in its mouth. (See also 8:3-iO, 20-22 .) 

The four-headed leopard is the third of the 
beasts. This clearly represents the empire of 
Alexander ar.d its division after his death into 


Prof®eaor Rail’s Teaching 


103 


four kingdoms, the thrones of which were 
occupied by his four leading generals, Cassan- 
der, Lysimmachus, Seleucus and Ptolemy. The 
fourth metal in the Image, which was iron, and 
the fourth beast, which had ten horns, repre¬ 
sent the great Roman empire and its division 
into ten kingdoms. The beastly order in this 
vision continues down the centuries through 
the little horn, the Pope of Rome, the anti- 
Christ.* 

Case, Rail and other destructive critics are 
not ignorant of history; they know these facts. 
Then why should they seek to obscure them? 
They subvert the teachings of God’s Word 
in an effort to establish their own wisdom and 
to sustain their papal dogma of postmillen- 
nialism. 

Put Case scarcely does himself justice as a 
scholar when he so palpably perverts the 
things that are written in the Book of Daniel. 
He even has Daniel and the three Hebrew 

children cast into the fiery furnace, whereas 
in the record Daniel v/as not present on that 
occasion. He further says: “They (that is, 
all four of them) were cast into the den of 
lions; whereas only Daniel passed through this 
experience. It is well that a man should know 
many things, but quite important that what 
he knows should be true rather than false. 


1C4 Pastmilleiiiiialbm and The Higher Critics 
Was There a Daniel? 

There was, most emphatically, whatever 
the opinion of Rail, Case and company. I 
offer the following unanswerable proofs of this 
assertion: 

t. The Jews recognized the Book of Daniel 
as part of the canon. They were very zealous 
for the law and the prophets, and would hardly 
have admitted this book to their canon of 
Scripture if it had not been genuine. 

2 . The Book of Maccabees, an apocryphal 
book, speaks of David, Elijah, Ananias, Azarias 
and Mishael, saying that they (the last three) 

*See “Who is the Beast?” by Pickett and 
Wimberly. 

“'were delivered out of the flames,” adding, 
“Daniel in his innocence was delivered out of 
the mouth of the lions.” (1 Mac. 2:56-60). 
Thus this writer lists Daniel and the three who 
were cast into the fiery furnace with Caleb, 
David and other historic characters, making no 
distinction whatever between them. 

3. The Book of Daniel is translated into 
the Greek in what is called the Septuagint. 
This work of seventy noted scholars was begun 
in 2 85 B. C., and includes, as 1 have said, the 
Book of Daniel. 

4. Daniel was recognized by Ezekiel as one 
of God’s noblemen. Ezekiel prophesied at 



105 


Professor Rail's Teaching 

the same date commonly given to the Book 
of Daniel, about 550 B. C. Through him God 
said, speaking of the wickedness of the city, 
‘‘Though these three men were there, Noah, 
Daniel and Job, they could deliver but their 
own souls by their righteousness, saith the 
Lord God.” (Ezek. 14:14). Again he speaks 
of the wisdom of Daniel (28: 3). 

The passage we have quoted is remarkable. 
Both Job and Noah were among the most 
ancient characters of sacred history. Daniel, 
in the days of Ezekiel, was a living man, and 
yet he took such high rank that God, through 
Daniel’s contemporary, had this living prophet 
rated with these two ancient worthies. It is 
as though a writer of the present day should 
speak in the same breath of Moses, George 
Washington and Woodrow Wilson as men of 
pre-eminence in world history. So Daniel was 
listed, though a living man, with those .of 
ancient pre-eminence; and the Book of Eze¬ 
kiel, in which his name appears, was written 
some four hundred years before the date these 
critics give to Daniel. Thus we see the sense¬ 
lessness of their folly; the inexcusable igno¬ 
rance of their vaunted learning. 

5. Finally, we show by Jesus Christ Himself 
that Daniel was a real man, a true prophet. 

The Master said, “When ye see the abomina¬ 
tion of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the 


106 Postmillennialism and The Higher Critics 

prophet, standing in the holy place, then let 
them which ibe in Judea flee into the moun¬ 
tains. ” (Matt. 24: 15.) Here are two points 
confirmed iby the Lord, (a) There was a 
“prophet” whose name was Daniel who had 
lived and prophesied prior to our Lord’s utter¬ 
ance; (b) this prophet had foretold an abomi¬ 
nation of desolation which was as yet unful¬ 
filled when Jesus spoke. But our Lord warned 
the people that it would occur at some time 
in the luture. 

The sum of what we have set forth is that 
the Book of Daniel is genuine; that it was 
written by a man who was loved in heaven 
and honored on earth; that he spoke the truth, 
and that his prophecies shall be fulfilled. This 
being true, Rail, Case and other postmillennia! 
modern critics are teachers of falsehood and 
should not be recognized as reliable interpreters 
of the Bible. 


Was Pae! & FostmilienmaKst ? 

In his study of Paul, Professor Rail get: 
himself into confusion and self-contradiction. 
He says, “There is no premillennialism with 
Paul”; again, “that Paul expected the end of 
the age very soon does not change the matter; 
that he looked forward to a great consumma¬ 
tion, this age evil, that age good; this age the 
rule of the powers of darkness; there the reigm 
of God; here simply endurance and hope, there 


107 


Professor Rail's Teaching 

enjoyment; such is the essence of the apoca¬ 
lyptic scheme, and Paul has destroyed it. The 
vital point at which Paul overcame this lies 
in his idea of salvation as essentally inner and 
spiritual and ethical, and so available to men 
now” (pp. 76, 80, 81). “Over against the 
dark background* of current apocalypticism, 
without hope as regards to this age, there 
stands the teaching of Paul piled with the 
thought of a great salvation that is here and 
now” (p. 79). How r ever, along with the 
words we have quoted from Rail, he is forced 
to admit “the fact that most of Paul’s refer¬ 
ences to the kingdom were eschatological” 
(p. 81). He further says, “For him, as for 
the early Christian all, Christ and His return 
was the heart of the apocalyptic hope” (p. 
83 ). 

So Paul has destroyed premillennialism! 
Strange, indeed! How could Paul have de¬ 
stroyed a doctrine in which he so heartily 
believed? That he was an ardent lover of 
this great truth is clearly revealed in a study 
of his writings and also by Rail’s own con¬ 
cessions above. 

1. This age (all of it )is evil. (Gal. 1:4.) 

2. He who hates light and truth is its god. 
(2 Cor. 4:4.) 

3. This age will terminate in extensive and 
intensive wickedness, when men wall have the 


103 Postmjllcarislbm and The Higher Critics 

form of godliness without its essence. (2 Tim. 
3: 16.) 

4. The entire age is cursed toy an awful 
apostasy, which was already beginning in Paul’s 
own day, resulting in the revelation of the 
man of sin who should only b e dest royed by 
the glory of the personal advent of our Lord. 
(2 Thess. 2.) 

This one passage alone utterly annihilates 
postmillennialism. It shows the presence of 
the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition, in the 
very day of our Lord’s return, at which time 
l'e shall be destroyed. But Paul also shows 
that the apostasy which should produce him 
was at work at the time the epistle was writ¬ 
ten. Thus the anti-Christ (who is the Pope 
of Rome), with his attending apostasy, covers 
almost the entire period, ending only with the 
consummation of the age. 

5. This age will end in a departure from 
the faith and the giving heed to doctrines of 
devils, rather than in a converted world. (1 
Tim. 4:1, 2 .) 

6 . A groaning creation, burdened and suf¬ 
fering, will continue until the sons of God are 
manifested. (Rein. 8: 19-23.) 

7. The saints only receive their crowns when 
Jesus appears in His glory. (Col. 3: 4.) 

8 . For this crowning Paul fought, and he 
won. (2 Tim. 4:7, 8.) 


Professor Rail’s Teaching 109 

9. To the great apostle our Lord’s return 
is “the blessed hope.” (Tit. 2: 13.) 

10. Paul agreed with John concerning the 
two-fold resurrection, saying that he himself 
was striving, “if by any means he might attain 
to the out-resurrection, which is from among 
the dead ones.” (Gr. Phil. 3: 11.) This is also 
confirmed in his epistle to the Thessalonians 
(4: 16-18) where he tells of the resurrection 
of the Lord’s dead, this being followed by the 
translation of the living saints. 

11. The judgment is set forth in 2 Timothy 
4: 1 , 2 by Paul, even as by John in Revelation 
20, when he says that Christ shall at his appear¬ 
ing “judge the quick and the dead.” He does 
not inform us what length of time the judgment 
of the quick will occupy, but he shows us that 
it precedes the judgment of the dead. All thai 
John does in Revelation is to confirm this and 
to show us that the judgment of the quick 
continues for one thousand years, this being 
followed by the judgment of the dead. Men 
could have been saved from much folly and 
many untrue utterances on this subject had they 
noticed that the millennium is simply the judg¬ 
ment of the living nations, being in no wise 
the perfect reign of Christ on earth. 

Thus Paul and John agree with each other 
and with all other Bible teachers concerning 
the millennium. Every writer in the Bible is 
a premillennialist. 


110 PoslmillenakiSism and The Higher Critics 
Premillennialism and Spirituality. 

Mr. Rail likes to throw into our face the 
fact that Paul talked about “a. great salvation 
that is here and now”; that he emphasized the 
power of a new life, a deliverance from sin; 
that “the gospel which he preaches is no mere 
future hope” (p. 79). Certainly. But this 
same Paul, in the very breath in which he 
said “Christ is our life,” added when He shall 
appear “then shall ye also appear with Him 
in glory.” Only those who live the Christ life 
now and here shall be crowned with Him then 
and there. Such is the testimony of John also 
when he says, “It doth not yet appear what 
we shall be; but we know that, when He shall 
appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall sec 
Him as He is.” Now, observe the refining 
effect of this doctrine: “And every man that 
hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even 
as he is pure.” (1 John 2:3.) Again, the 
beloved disciple says, “Little children abide in 
Him, that when He shall appear we may have 
confidence and not be ashamed before Him at 
His coming.” (1 John 3: 28 .) It was Paul who 
said, “The very God of Peace Himself sanctify 
you wholly, and preserve you blameless unto 

(for) the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 
(1 Thess. 5:23.) Thus both John and Paul 
agree that we should be holy in heart, living 
the Christ-life among men, that we may be 


Professor Rail’s Teaching 111 

ready for the crowning of the faithful at His 
coming in kingly glory. 

A greater than these, Jesus, Master and Lord 
of all, used His own advent as a basis for 
exhortation to koly living, saying: ‘Therefore 
be ye also ready, for in such an hour as ye 
think not the Son of Man cometh.” (Matt. 24: 
44.) Holiness is essential if we would greet 
Him with joy at His appearing. (Heb. 12: 14.) 

How glad 1 am to be lined up in my belief 
and teaching with these ancient premillennial- 
ists. Nothing that the higher critics can say 
shall shake me from this faith and this align¬ 
ment. 

Bearing Fruit. 

The teachings of Rail and others of the 
critical school are bearing fruit. The kind of 
fruit produced thereby may be seen in the fol¬ 
lowing extracts from an article by William 
Matthews, Esq., which 1 clip from the Central 
Christian Advocate of July, 1921. After saying 
that a well organized movement is on foot to 
“put a ban upon the study of the historical 
Jesus and oppose all liberal tendencies,” this 
layman says: “The proponents of premillen- 
nialism would compel all Christians to sub¬ 
scribe to a belief, first, in the bodily resurrection 
of Jesus; second, in the bodily resurrection of 
all communicants; third, in the bodily ascension 
of Jesus; fourth, in the bodily second coming 


112 Posimillennialism and The Higher Critics 

of Jesus; and, fifth, in the literal infallibility 
of the Bible. Should these extremists obtain 
control it will result in eliminating the educated 
men and women from the church. They make 
an appeal to the grossest sort of materialism.” 

Is it true that premillennialists are the 
grossest type of materialists? Esquire Mat¬ 
thews seems to really believe so. Hear him 
further: 

“He comes to His glory, not as the Savior, 
meek and lowly, not through the suffrage of 
willing hearts and the plaudits of a welcoming 
world, but as a king, an autocrat, a despot, 
through the gushing blood of a trampled 
world.” 

“Those who speak of Jesus’ kingdom of 
heaven as something which is to have its advent 
in the future entirely misunderstand the great 
plan of the Man of Galilee. His conception 
of the kingdom of heaven was unique and 
bold.” 

* * * * * 

“Jesus conceived of a kingdom that had no 
physical boundaries; that was not ruled over 
by a prince nor a scion of royal line; that was 
not held together by armies and whose sub¬ 
jects were not controlled by law. He conceived 
of a kingdom founded on righteousness and 
governed by the great law of love and charity, 
and when He said that His generation should 


113 


Professor Rail’s Teaching 

not pass away until the kingdom of heaven 
would come with power, He did not mean that 
He would come back to earth and lead an 
army of men who would slay all the wicked 
and drive out evil by resort to force. But He 
rather intended that His kingdom—the king¬ 
dom of righteousness—would spread with such 
rapidity that its effect would begin immediately 
to be felt over the Roman Empire. And so it 
was.” 

“His disciples were wholly unable to com¬ 
prehend His plans, and we find them quarreling 
among themselves as to who should be greatest 
in the temporal government which they be¬ 
lieved He was about to establish. Even Paul, 
in his letter to the lliessalonians, states that 
he expected the immediate second coming, 
bodily, of the Messiah. All is entirely 
explained, however, from the parables 
which Jesus used to illustrate the kingdom of 
heaven, that He did not expect any sudden 
and miraculous transformation of men’s char¬ 
acter, but that He believed this kingdom of 
righteousness would have a gradual but sure 
growth; and, as illustrated in the parable of 
the leaven, that it would slowly but surely work 
its transformation. 

“So that those material minds who assent 
to the material minded that there is to be a 
second coming lose the spiritual significance of 


114 PestrnJJennialisrn &rul The Higher Critics 

Jesus' plan. They can see nothing but ths 
operation of material forces, whereas Jesus 
believed that the spiritual forces would ulti¬ 
mately prevail over the material. 

“But Jesus did return.” 

it seems that Mr. Matthews has been reading 
after Professor Rail. His utterances are very 
dogmatic. From the extracts given we gather 
the following unmistakable items: William 
Matthews, Esq., who seems to be a Methodist 
layman, has so far accepted the Rail teachings 
as to deny— 

1. The bodily resurrection of Jesus; 

2. The bodily resurrection of the saints; 

3. The personal and bodily ascension of 
Jesus; 

4. The personal second coming of Jesus; 

5. The infallibility of the Bible; 

6. The coming of a kingdom “ruled over 
by a prince”; 

7. The crushing of opposition to Jesus and 
His government by divine power. 

However, Mr. Matthews does believe— 

1. That the second coming is past. “But 
Jesus did return”; 

2. That Paul was a greatly deceived man, 
expecting “the immediate second coming of 
the Messiah”; 

3. That premillennialists are a bunch of ma¬ 
terially-minded men who utterly misunderstand 


Professor R&iPs Teaching 


115 


the plain teachings of the Bible and the spiritual 
significance of our Lord’s scheme of world 
subjugation. 

In reply to the above, I call attention to 
the following scriptures: 

(a) The resurrection of our Lord was a bod¬ 
ily resurrection, as shown by the following 
facts: It was His body that was crucified, that 
died, that rose again, that was seen by many 
of His disciples, that ate fish by the seaside, 
that ascended in the presence of His up-gazing 
disciples. Jesus bade Thomas to thrust his 
finger in His hands and his hands in His side, 
“and be not faithless but believing.” If His 
body were not raised, how was it that “they 
gave Him a piece of broiled fish and of an 
honey comb, and He took it, and did eat 
before them.” He even spoke in this connec¬ 
tion of having “flesh and bones.” (Luke 24: 
39-43; John 20:27.) The tomb was empty 
and the place bare where they laid Him. (Mk. 
16:6, 7; Luke 24:3-6.) Observe: “They 
found not the body of Jesus.” Any man who 
will deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ 
in the face of these plain Scriptures is abso¬ 
lutely as much an infidel as was Voltaire. 

(b) If there is no resurrection of the body 
there is no resurrection at all. The soul does 
not go into the grave; only the body is buried 
and returns dust to dust. The souls of believers 


116 PcstmlHenmaiism The Higher Critics 

when absent from the body are “present with 
the Lord.” (2 Cor. 5:8.) But since it is the 
body that is buried, that enters the grave, then 
it is the body that shall be raised from the 
dead. Jesus Himself said that the time is 
coming when “all that are in the graves shall 
hear his voice and shall come forth.” (John 
5:28, 29.) Thus men who deny the resur¬ 
rection of the body of Jesus ana the resur¬ 
rection of the dead do in their folly make Jesus 
a liar and the Bible a tissue of falsehoods. May 
God pity them! 


(c) As to the bodily ascension of our Lord, 
the whole question hinges on the reliability of 
the divine record. It is plainly stated that 
'Jesus should come again even as He went. 
He went visibly and in His body, and if the 
tw r o white-robed witnesses spoke the truth He 
will come just as He went. (Acts 1:9-11.) 
Jesus Himself said time and again that He 
should be seen coming in the clouds. This 
statement of His angered not only William 
Matthews and Professor Rail, but the ancient 
high priest. (Matt. 26:64-66.) 


(d) That Jesus did not come again at any 
time in the past, as asserted above by Mr. 
Matthews, we have so thoroughly demon¬ 
strated in our reply to Mr. Goff and Mr. Camp¬ 
bell that we deem it unnecessary to add any¬ 
thing further. I 


117 


Professor Rail’s Teaching 

(e) Mr. M. objects to a kingdom ruled by 
a prince. What, then, is the meaning of Isaiah’s 
saying, “Beheld a king shall reign in righteous¬ 
ness, and princes shall rule in judgment”? 
(32:1.) 

(f) He opposes the crushing of opposition 
by divine power. Then let him explain Psalm 
2:9; Rev. 14:18-20; 19:16-20. 

As to his slure upon premillennialists, indi¬ 
cating that they are ignorant and absolutely 
deceived as to the scheme of world subjugation, 
I perhaps need to add nothing but to say that 
many of them are, and have ever been, in the 
front rank of Bible teachers and soul-winners. 

His charge that Paul was deceived in his 
expectation of the immediate return of our 

A 

Lord is sufficiently answered by the great 
apostle himself in the second chapter of his 
second epistle to the Thessalonians. 

We should perhaps have not introduced the 
name and sayings of Wm. Matthews in this 
connection, but from the fact that he is fol¬ 
lowing in the footsteps of Harris Franklin Rail, 
from v/hom we quote the following: “A promi¬ 
nent premillenniaiist issues the summons for the 
formation of a ‘Protestant Evangelical League,’ 
a leading object of which is to draw a line 
through the churches and to refuse fellowship 
to those who do not hold certain doctrines, 
such as the infallibility of the Scriptures, a 


118 Pcsteiilejiniallsm assd The Higher Critics 

literal physical resurrection, and the second 
coming” (p. 168). 

From the above it will be seen that Mr. 
Matthews is simply following the leadersn'p 
of Professor Rail in his rejection of the resur¬ 
rection, of the Lord’s return, and of “the 
infallibility of the Bible.” The professor’s 
constant harping on “the infallibility of the 
Scriptures” leads me to call the reader's atten¬ 
tion to the meaning of this word. In the 
Standard Dictionary we have as one of the 
definitions of infallible, “Exempt from uncer¬ 
tainty or liability to failure.” In defining 
infallibility, it gives this: “In theology, the 
doctrine of the infallibility of the church is 
that the church is divnely kept from error :n 
the teaching of doctrine and morals.” 

Webster, defining infallible, uses these words: 
“Not liable to fail, deceive, or disappoint; 
indubitable; sure; certain, as infallible evi¬ 
dence.” Now, if the Bible is not an infallible 
book, then it must be fallible; that is, it must 
be liable to deceive, to disappoint, to fail. It 
must lead to error in teaching, in doctrine and 
morals. So thus we lose the doctrine of the 
resurrection, of the return of our Lord, and of 
a Bible that is inspired of God, on the teachings 
of which we can build our hopes for eternity. 

Having destroyed our Bible and annihilated 
our resurrection hope, Rail, Matthews and 


11© 


PrG#®86or Rail’s Teaching 

Company exhort us to patience and to a recog¬ 
nition of their rights in the Church of God. 
Having asserted that premillennialism is an 
“assault upon character,” Mr. Rail adds: “The 
typical premillennial evangelist sending Dar¬ 
win and Huxley to hell because they taught 
evolution is a good example. By Its spirit and 
its attitude, premillennialism thus stands in the 
way of another of the great movements of the 
day—that which seeks the closer relation of 
Christian bodies for the extension of Christ 4 * 
kingdom” (pp. 168, 169.) 

The writer is a premillennial evangelist. 
He does not “send men to hell”; that is the 
province of God, not of man. But if th§ 
church is to be filled with infidels, with Hux¬ 
leys, Darwins, with evolutionists and destruc¬ 
tive critics who repudiate the resurrection and 
the absolute, inspired authority of Holy Scrip¬ 
ture, I, for one, have no confidence in its 
teaching or its work. I believe with the 
Psalmist that God has “magnified His word 
above all His name.” (Ps. 138:2.) This in¬ 
spired, infallible Word of God is the founda¬ 
tion on which we build. “If the foundations 
be destroyed, what can the righteous do”! 
(Ps. 11:3.) 

Postmillennialists have found that they can 
»ot sustain their pet dogma from God's Holf 
Book, so they are now battering at the found**- 


120 Postmillennialism and The Higher Critics 

tions, and will, if successful, leave us stranded 
on the bleak shores of a fathomless sea of 
infidelity. But, thank God, what my premil- 
lennial Lord said is true: “Till heaven and 
earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no 
wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled." 
“The word of the Lord endureth forever." 

It is the anchor of our hope, the foundation 
of our faith, the source of our comfort, the 
spring of our joy, the title deed to our mansion 
in the skies. Its law furnishes the materials for 
building holy character; its prophecies inspire 
hope and faith; they radiate celestial light 
upon our pilgrim journey and emblazon on the 
the'Christian’s pathway eternal hope, with man¬ 
sions of deathless glory and crowns of fadeless 
beauty. 

We will not surrender our God-given Bible 
at the behest of infidels in the church or out. 
The Book of Eternal Truth shall stand unshaken 
when all the evolutionists and critical skeptics 
with their teachings have turned to dust and 
have sunk into merited oblivion. 


L. L. P. 


CHAPTER V. 

George P. Mains’ Book, “Premff lennialism.’’ 

Mr. Mains has held high official position in 
Methodism. He is a man of education and 
ecclesiastical standing, and has had wide read¬ 
ing and an extended influence. In the first 
chapter of his book we read this honest con¬ 
fession: “The .prevalent view of the early 
church was that Christ would soon return in 
glorious power to the earth” (p. 16.) Again 
he says, “It is to be admitted that in the early 
church there was a general and eager expecta¬ 
tion of Christ's near return to the world” (p. 
54). Once more we read, “The early church 
did most surely and prevalently look for the 
near return of Christ to end the present order 
of the world. This view was undoubtedly held 
by Christ’s immediate apostles” (p. 120). 

From these concessions a thinking man 
should be slow to set forth a differing theory. 
The disciples and early Christians knew our 
Lord personally. They heard His messages, 
chatted familiarly with Him, lived in His pres¬ 
ence, and absorbed His thoughts and teachings. 
They were more likely to be right than twen¬ 
tieth century critics and theological specula¬ 
tors. 

Next, Mr. Mains locates certain opposition 
to premillennialism. “As early as the fifth 


123 PoetmSkank^Mm aaid Iko Higher Cs&km 

century Augustine smote hip an4 thigh, well 
nigh to its death, the entire structure of pre¬ 
mill ennialism. Calvin was one of the most 
vigorous thinkers who ever stood on two feet. 
His logic had in it the quality of the Day of 
Judgment. He had no use for premillen- 
malism” (p. 46). He tells us that Calvin 
“gave the Book of Revelation a wide berth.” 
He th$n informs us that Professor Porter of 
Yak University, speaking of the first three 
verses of Revelation 20, calls them “the fateful 
verses which have produced one of the least 
useful chapters in the long history of Christian 
thought. ” 

We arc perfectly willing to take our stand 
with Peter, James, John and the early disciples 
and Christians, as against Augustine, Calvin and 
Professor Porter. The reader may take his 
choice; but I have no hesitancy in lining up 
vigorously with those who knew and loved and 
walked with Jesus. Premillennialism had its 
birth in the age and atmosphere that gave us 
the New Testament. Postmillennialism had 
its inception in the age and atmosphere that 
gave us x oman Catholicism, “the mother of 
harlots and abominations of the earth,” and 
German rationalistic criticism. As to Calvin, 
he was simply breaking the shackles of the 
Middle Ages, and was bound in the hard and 
fast fetters of a system of decrees that mars 
the beauty and loveliness of Christianity. 


deo.P.M&£*j’ Hook, “Pr@sniBennlal$eraP ? 13S 

Our author, however, is forced to coacedi 
that the apostolic doctrine of premillennialism 
has had its adherents all down the ages, H* 
says: “All through the centuries, from th# 
days of Ignatius of Antioch to these later days 
of Pastor Russell, the premillennial hope, in 
some periods more pronounced, in some less 
so, has been in one form or another revived” 
(p. 53.) He might have spared some of our 
feelings by omitting the name of “Pastor 
Russell,” and inserting instead those luminaries 
of the nineteenth century—Moody, H. Grattan 
Guinness, Joseph A. Seiss, A. B. Simpson, Lea 
G. Broughton, J. Wilbur Chapman, and that 
beacon light of faith, George Muller. The 
brightest examples of a prevailing faith, those 
who have made their mark upon Christendom, 
who have been able to work wonders and from 
their closets of prayer to shake nations. They 
have been widely known for their earnest 
advocacy of the premillennial hope and faith. 
On the other hand, the higher critics and other 
ecclesiastical infidels have never sent forth 
from their ranks a single warm-hearted pre- 
millennialist, so far as I know. 

Mr. Mains says, concerning premillennialisna, 
“Its methods are in too exaggerated and gross 
violation of established creedal truth, too 
mechanical, too illogical, to make it at all 
possible that it should in any way disturb the 
assured solidity already reached by criMcitl 



124 PottmillemaHsm and The Higher Critics 

Christian thought. In real scholarship premil- 
lennlalism will always prove a negligible quan¬ 
tity.” Again he says, “The scholarship of the 
church on this question is sound, and scholar¬ 
ship alone, as rightly belongs to its province, 
will finally and triumphantly close the debate” 
(pp. 52, 53). 

1 am not so sure of the safety of scholarship 
as is our friend Mains. Scholarship may ibe so 
rationalistic as to be absolutely perversive of 
truth. Among all the writers of the New Testa¬ 
ment, Paul alone was noted for learning. The 
schools seldom radiate spiritual light and power. 
I observe that Mr. Mains himself has learned 
that great names are no guarantee of spiritual 
insight. In one place he says: “Such masters 
as Origen, Athanasius, and even Augustine, 
interpreted the Scriptures by methods as fan¬ 
tastic and absurd as could v/ell enter into the 
most childish imagination” (p. 58). 

And this same “fantastic” and “absurd” in¬ 
terpreter, Augustine, is the one who, as he 
told us above, smote premillennialism “hip and 
thigh”. Thus he destroys his own chief sup¬ 
port. 

We would call the attention of Mr. Mains 
and the reader to a pertinent remark of the 
great New Testament scholar and apostle to 
the Gentiles, where, speaking of our Lord’s 
“appearing and kingdom,” he says: “Preach 


Geo.P.Mains* Book, “Premillennialism.” 125 

the Word * * * for the time will come 

when they will not endure sound doctrine, but 
after their own lusts shall they heap to them¬ 
selves teachers having itching ears; and they 
shall turn away their ears from the truth, and 
shall be turned into fables.” (2 Tim. 4: 1-4.) 
It will be observed that we must preach “the 
Word,” not scholarship nor the findings of 
science, but God’s own Word. Then Paul 
charges upon “teachers,” not gospel preachers, 
but scholastics, the class that Mr. Mains thinks 
will “triumphantly close the debate,” respon¬ 
sibility for apostasy from inspired truth. He 
also labels their philosophic pronouncements 
“fables,” and says they have “itching ears.” 
It is from the schools we get monkey-to-man 
evolution, rationalistic criticism, denial of the 
virgin birth, the deity, the bodily resurrection, 
and the glorious personal coming and kingly 
reign of our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, 
Son of Man. Truly they have turned the Word 
of God into “fables.” But God shall turn 
them into destruction for perverting His truth. 
The schools of the day are hotbeds of infidelity 
and are largely dominated by itching-eared 
“teachers.” Their attitude will not “triumph¬ 
antly close” this debate. Never! 

The fact is, kneeology is often more illumi¬ 
nating and dependable than theology. Three 
years in a school of prayer, faith, heart-search- 


126 Poslm&lesxnialism Gad The Higixer Critics 

ing, humiliation and lowly elTort to kno,w 
Christ and His mind would be worth a thousand¬ 
fold more than three years spent in a theo¬ 
logical seminary under the cold-blooded in¬ 
struction of a postmillennial rationalistic critic, 
who ranks Daniel and John with the old apocra- 
phal writers of heathsn and Greak philos©- 
phies. 

The author we have under review comes dan¬ 
gerously near to placing our Lord Himself in 
the same category as he places others whom he 

lists as apocalyptists. In proof of this assertion, 

note the following: 

“However, in all this we may finally inter¬ 
pret Christ, there seems little room to doubt 
that whenever He spoke, as He did rarely, of 
His own Messiahship; when He discoursed on 
final things; when He spoke, as He did fre¬ 
quently, of His own future kingdom—on all 
these things He invariably spoke in terms and 
figures of apocalyptic thought already domesti¬ 
cated in the common mind." And then he 
adds, “It must be duly stressed that the escha¬ 
tology prevalent in the time of Christ was a 
Jewish rather than a Christian product" (op. 
36-37). 

Thus this writer has Jesus accepting and 
making use of Jewish apocalypticism. If there 
is anything wrong or false with this teaching, 
the blame must fall on the “Son of Man," who 
thus made use of it. 


Geo.P.Mains’ Book, “Prsmtiienn$al!«n.” 127 

Speaking of the Book of Revelation, Mr. 
Mains says there are some scholars who con¬ 
sider parts of it of “Babylonish origin.” He 
also says, “Doubtless there are several refer¬ 
ences in if to the Book of Enoch.” He adds, 
“Whatever may be said concerning these 
sources, the sources of the book as a whole 
make if an Old Testament product.” And yet 
John walked with /Jesus as a bosom com- 

i 

panion. 

Mr. Mains himself says that in the Book of 
Revelation there are more than five hundred 
references to Old Testament passages, and 
forty-five to the Book of Daniel alone (37-38). 
Then if John’s teachings are false, so are the 
Old Testament Scriptures. In order to limit 
the prophetic authority of the book, he tells 
us that John “was not at all thinking of events 
so far away as the twentieth century of the 
Christian era,” but that he “lived in an hour 
for action, intense action,” and adds, “One 
could no more reduce the Revelation of St. 
John to literal, cold and unemotional prose 
than he could pluck Orion from the constella¬ 
tions of the night” (pp. 40-41 ) s 

What is the sum of it all? Simply this: 
The Book of Revelation must be taken ciam- 
grano-sails. 

These postmillennial writers prepare the 
ground to reject or brush aside as of doubtful 


128 Posimillennislicm and The Highcr Critics 

and uncertain meaning all those figures and 
•symbols that do not fit into their scheme of 
interpretation. The author whom we are re¬ 
viewing proceeds to say: “We have seen what 
seems to us fully convincing that John’s writ¬ 
ing was called forth by a great crisis of perse¬ 
cution, the tragic scenes of which were raging 
around him at the very time in which he wrote” 
(P-44). 

In giving utterance to these words his refer¬ 
ence is to the saying so frequently found in 
the Apocalypse from the lips of Jesus, ’'‘De- 
hold, I come quickly.” And this at one time 
is accompanied with the Seer’s response, 
“Amen; even so, come. Lord Jesus.” He 
says that John was doubtless an eye-witness 
and a sharer in these severe trials—“and that 
he should have given himself in such an hour 
to the writing of a prophecy, the chief lesson 
of which was not for his fellow sufferers of the 
time, but for men twenty or more centuries 
away—this is an assumption which both logic¬ 
ally and psychologically must be challenged 
as both irrational and inexplicable.” Thus he 
makes the book to be simply a human pro¬ 
duction, written in the midst of stirring and 
trying scenes by one of the sufferers, who 
tries to produce some encouragement and some 
comfort for his sorely-tested brethren, as well 
as for his own heart. 


Geo.P.Moms’ Book, “PremiOennialicna.” 129 


I have always looked upon the Bible as a 
whole, including the Apocalypse, as an inspired 
book, one that speaks the message of God to 
men, whatever their land, or whatever the age 
in which they lived. But if Mr. Mains is right, 
then John wrote merely out of a burdened 
heart for the people of his own day and gen¬ 
eration, and we of the twentieth century have 
in the Book no message from God. But we 
shall see more of this in other pages. 

The author of “PremillennialisnT , makes one 
charge which I challenge as to premillennialists 
in general, especially as to myself. He says: 
“It is certain that a pronounced majority of 
premillennial writers lay great emphasis upon 
the restoration of Old Testament usage'>, whicn 
in their view, are to be re-installed in the 
millennial kingdom.” 


He quotes from another author, with ap¬ 
proval, the charge that there would arise 
“among believers in later times a school of 
interpreters who would teach that the whole 
Mosaic system, with its temple and central seat 
of worship and its seasons and feasts and sac¬ 
rifices, its passover and unleavened bread, its 
daily peace offerings and bloody burnt offerings 
and sin-offerings, its altar streaming with blood 
and its smoke of incense, was to be restored 

in Jerusalem after the second coming of Christ. 
Who could have believed this incredible thing? 


30 Pcsimillennialism and The Higher Critics 


And yet this very thing has come to pass and 
now is” (p. 80, 81). 

I am familiar with premillennialists, 
have read their books, heard their sermons, 
and mingled with them; have myself written 
a number of books on the subject, and have 
preached hundreds of sermons from this view¬ 
point, but I have never known any teaching 
among orthodox premillennialists that would 
justify the above charge. 

It may be possible that the reference is to 
the last eight chapters of the Book of Ezekiel. 
I readily grant that this prophet was a pre- 
millennialist, as were the other writers of the 
Bible. I also concede that the passage under 
consideration contains some difficulties, but 
these have to be faced as much by postmil- 
lennialists as by those of us who believe in 
premillennialism. To say the least, it is not by 
any modern premillennialist, and our critics 
may have the pleasure of setting Ezekiel right 
if they wish. But they should not charge such 
teachings against premillennialists of the twen¬ 
tieth century, A. D. I do not believe that 
any of the Mosaic ritual, or the Levities! ordi¬ 
nances will ever again come into general use 
among others than the restored Jews, and 
members of the Ten Lost Tribes, and among 

them only in that short period cf time which 
intervenes between their gathering back into 


Geo.P.M&iv'is’ Dock, “Fremillenntalism” 131 

Palestine, in an unconverted state, and the 
millennial reign of our Lord. 

Postmillennialists have a hard time recon¬ 
ciling their boundless claims to gospel suprem¬ 
acy throughout the world, their roseate opti¬ 
mism with the “hard-boiled” facts of past and 
current history. Facts are said to be stubborn 
things. It must have been a hard thing for q 
full-fledged postmillennial preacher to write 
the following admission; that he labored, in 
doing so is manifest. He said: “It may be 
unhesitatingly admitted that the present age, 
with all its historic optimism, seems one of 
unprecedented turmoil. It is an age which 
might inspire new apocalypses. Its oceanic 
tides of catastrophe seem to be smiting all 
the shore-lines of the world. Still, we ought 

by this time to have learned, and to have 
become somewhat prepared for the fact, that 
God has a way of making great use of what 
we call catastrophes in His scheme for the 
moral development of mankind” (pp. Ill, 
112 ). 

Truly, God has always visited upon ithe 
world His judgments because of sin. And down 
to the end of this age we will continue to see 
the outpourings of His wrath. The greatest 
of all tribulations will immediately precede our 
Lord’s kingly coming with His crowned saints. 


132 FcstmilleiHuaHsm and Ths Higher Critics 

A Feint of Agreement. 

Our brother has been led to misjudge pre- 
millennialists. He should have heard more of 
us preach. He should have read more of our 
books. I have written several volumes, the 
reading of which would have done him good. 
Notable among these is my “Renewed Earth.” 
The point I make is, his misconception con¬ 
cerning premillennial teaching. When he be¬ 
lieves that we expect the destruction of all 
things earthly at the return of our Lord he 
utterly misses the mark. 

I have for years been pointing God’s people 
to a golden age of millennial blessedness, to 
be followed by a yet greater and more perfectly 
Edenized age in the renewed earth, when all 
the vast resources of a world redeemed should 
come into the service of a restored, a re¬ 
deemed and pristine humanity who shall be 
holy and perfect, even as when the first man 
came fresh from the hand of his Maker, who 
then pronounced him good, even “very good,’’ 
bearing as he did the Divine image. In earth 
made new and peopled by a renewed and 
deathless race all its vast resources shall come 
into full use. I can see then all the glorious 
things p.ortrayed by Mr. Mains in the following 
beautiful word picture: 

“But, if man is the final end of the material 
creation, then there is certainly much ground 


Geo.F. Mains’ Book, ‘'Fr emiU enni&Iism’’ 133 

to infer that his kind is to have a long con¬ 
tinuance upon the earth. Accepting the fact 
cf an intelligent and moral Creator of the 
universe, a Creator who from the beginning 
has wrought toward, and who has made all 
material development subordinate fto moral, 
spiritual, and eternal ends, then the rational 
logic of the situation fortifies a revolt against 
any belief which asserts that the stay of the 
human race upon the earth is at longest but 
for a brief period, a period to be terminated 
in the near future by a stroke of catastrophe. 
Judging from all human analogy, the time of 
preparation of the house for its inhabitant is 
brief as compared with the living tenancy of 
the house itself. With man always in the fore¬ 
ground of creative thought, the processes of 
preparing the world for his habitation date far 
back into infinite time. The mind is staggered 
by the cosmic process, working all the way 
from the original mists, and through innumer¬ 
able changes, to the final completion of the 

earth as a fitting abode for man.” 

‘'Rational mind refuses to believe that all 
this infinite preparation is to exhaust its mean¬ 
ing in a few brief centuries. Certainly, all 
sane science is both impatient and intolerant 
of such a conclusion. The earth itself is a 
great storehouse crowded with materials both 
needed and to be utilized by a human civiliza- 


134 Pcstmiliennialism and The Higher Critics 

tion. The inexhaustible wealth of nature, which 
seems to have no significance except for the 
uses of man, has hardly yet been touched. It 
is even doubtful whether very many of its 
most potential values have as yet been dis¬ 
covered. The material resources of the earth, 
both as developed and as yet undiscovered, 
for the uses of human invention and art, are 
simply incalculable. The world’s fertile lands 
under intensive culture, are capable of produc¬ 
ing bread and fruit to satisfy the physical hun¬ 
ger of the human race for indefinite ages to 
come. 

“The earth is not only a great material store¬ 
house, but it is a vast laboratory, an exhaustless 
art gallery. Within its bosom it enfolds infinite 
records of God’s thought—of His processes 
and His purposes toward the human world. All 
this gives unlimited scope for man’s scientific 
education, for the culture of his esthetical 
nature, for an ever-growing acquisition of his¬ 
toric, philosophical and moral knowledge. God 
has adapted the world as a great training school 
for the human race. All the crude material 
needed as scaffolding for the finer and enduring 
structures of culture are abundant and cheap. 
But all the realizations of historic, scientific 
and philosophical knowledge, all the develop¬ 
ments of apt and appliances needed for a grow¬ 
ing and perfecting civilization—all this, as 


Geo. P. Mains’ Book, ‘‘Premillennialism” 135 


growing out of man’s study and appropriation 
of nature’s treasures, is as yet but alphabetical. 
Every new scientific discovery reveals doors 
opening upon new treasures; every new philo¬ 
sophic achievement lifts thought to new sum¬ 
mits of observation; every advance in inven¬ 
tion and knowledge adds a new credential to 
man’s lordship in the material universe. The 
human race in its time-journey thus far in the 
earth has manifestly reached only the dawn of 
its intellectual possibilities. 

“The ancient seers prophesied, and inspired 
poets sang of a golden age somewhere embod¬ 
ied in the future of human history. We are 
accustomed to regard these voices as witnessing 
to God’s own purposes for man. But if we 
have the open vision and the listening ear, 
there will be disclosed to us in these very days 
another prophetic revelation, also voicing God’s 
thought and amplv confirming the vision of 
the ancient seer. This is the prophecy of grow¬ 
ing modern scientific knowledge. This revela¬ 
tion contains a confident prediction of the time 
when, under man’s trained and culturing hand, 
the very earth itself, so far as its material 
features are concerned, shall be transformed 
into a human paradise. More than this, the 
social and moral atmospheres of the world are 
electric with the prophecy for this world o^ a 
coming race that shall ibe brotherly, just, wise, 
high-minded, pure—a race over which Christ 


136 PosimiHennialisra and The Higher Critics 

shall be sovereign, and the charter of whose 
society shall [be the Golden Rule” (pp. 86- 
90). 

I can readily agree with what our friend 
has so beautifully said in the above. My faith 
has long seen for this world a golden age, an 
age of Edenic loveliness. The only point at 
which he and I seem to differ is that he expects 
the human race to achieve these wonders while 
Satan and his infernal forces remain on the 
earth, antagonizing every forward movement. 
I, on the other hand, expect these marvelous 
developments only under the beneficent reign 
of Jesus, Son of Man, federal head of a re¬ 
deemed race. Under His leadership earth shall 
reach marvelous heights in the on-coming mil¬ 
lenniums. The leadership and the glorv shall 
be His. Paul shows that earth will cease its 
groaning, and its sad dirge will die away only 
after the manifestation of the Celestial King 
with His royal and glory-garlanded saints. 
(Rom. 8: 19-23.) 

But Paul was no postmillennialist. 

A Total Misconception. 

Mr. Mains grows very eloquent in his denun¬ 
ciation of premillennialism, based upon his false 
assumption that the race must be annihilated 
and the earth destroyed at the second coming 
of Jesus. He busies himself with destroying 
this man of straw of his own creation. The 


Geo. P. Mains’ Book, (( Premilieniu{ili$ni” 137 

thing he is really fighting is postmillennialism. 
God’s earth will not be destroyed. Its vast 
resources will continue for the use of man. The 
millennium is simply the reconstruction period, 
the Lord’s spring house-cleaning. It shall be 
a glorious period of gospel agency and of 
Divine government for the overthrow of sin 
in the earth. It shall be followed, by the 
judgment of the dead, the final separation of 
the good and bad, and the purgation of the 
earth from all the seeds of sin and all the sad 
effects of the fall. Beyond this glorious period 
lies “Paradise restored,” an Eden into which 
no sin shall ever again enter. 

Notice the following blundering effort to 
destroy premillennialism tby means of an utterly 
fallacious use of certain truths: “While we 
may not after our human pattern class God 
as an economist, yet it is impossible for us 
, reverently to think of Him as an infinite prodi¬ 
gal. To think of him as storing the universe with 
unmeasured resources adapted to the needs of 
man, and of man only, and then, in man's very 
infancy, and when the resources lie in nature’s 
bosom well-nigh untouched, of suddenly snatch¬ 
ing the human race away from the earth, and 
of setting fire to the storehouse-—all this must 
impress one as an irrational process. Physical 
science is but in its infancy. Nature, on every 
side, challenges it for infinite advancements. 
To exhaust the scientific resources of the earth 


138 Postmillennialism and The Higher Critics 

would seem to call for industrious and indefi¬ 
nite ages yet to come. The speedy ending of 
the world calls for a preposterous negation of 
all scientific prophecy” (pp. 91, 92, 93). 

Enough! And I say, “Amen.” He has de¬ 
stroyed his man of straw, and I shout over its 
ashes. Premillennialism abides unshaken, un¬ 
scorched. Jesus was manifested that He might 
destroy the works of Satan, and that He might 
renew, restore and perpetuate the works of 
God. Earth renewed shall go forward through 
endless eons, appropriating all its vast resources 
to the increase of a holy race, the perpetuation 
of the human family, the carrying out of the 
original purpose of God in creation. Satan 
and all his forces driven absolutely from the 
field, we shall see King Jesus crowned as Lord 
of all. 

Pity that Mr. Mains did not see these glorious 
facts, and devote his pen and ministry to the 
propagation of premillennial truth, rather than 
pcstmillennialfalsehood. 


L. L. P. 


CHAPTER VI. 

Apocalypticism. 

The term Apocalypse is from the Greek and 
means a revelation, a disclosure, something 
opened, unveiled, made known. It especially 
refers to a prophetic unfoldment of the future. 
The Book of Daniel is the one, authoritative, 
inspired, canonical Apocalypse of the Old Tes¬ 
tament, while the Revelation of John is the 
single authoritative, inspired, canonical Apoca¬ 
lypse of the New Testament. In addition to 
and in imitation of these there are many other 
apccalytic productions written during the later 
Jewish and early Christian age, but they were 
not admitted into the canon or recognized as 
a part of the Bible. 

The stream of apocalypses that followed the 
Book of Danel must not only be distinguished 
from the Bible, ibut also from the Apocrypha. 
Some of these uninspired, non-canonical apoca- 
lvpses are the Book of Enoch, the Book of 
Jubilees, the Psalms of Solomon, the Assump¬ 
tion of Moses, the Apocalypse of Ezra, the 
Apocalypse of Baruch and the Sybilline Oracles. 
While the term apocalypse means a revelation, 
the word apocrypha, on the other hand, signifies 
a concealment, something hidden, covered up. 
The term apocrypha is applied to a body of 
literature that has come down to us- in close 


MO PostmiUer-msIisaii and The Higher Critics 

connection with the canonical books of the 
Bible and yet is not of them. The books were 
hidden, some think. The Jews of Palestine 
rejected them. The early Christians and Prot¬ 
estants rejected them. The Roman Catholics 
in the Council of Trent (1546) adopted them, 
canonized them and put them, along with tra¬ 
dition, on a par with the Scriptures. The names 
of the apocryphal books are:- First and Sec¬ 
ond Maccabees, First Esdras, Baruch, Second 
Fsdras (apocalyptic in character), Susana, Bel 
and the Dragon, Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, 
Judith and Ecclesiasticus. 

The majority of the modern postmillennial 
higher critics do not draw any clear distinction 
between the apocrypha and the later Jewish 
Apocalypses. They even blot out the distinc¬ 
tion between the Bock of Daniel and the unin¬ 
spired Apocalypses. They put Daniel, the 
Apocrypha and the Apocalypses into the same 
category and lump them all as a certain species 
of the later Jewish literature. Out of this 
unique national, uninspired literature, according 
to the critics, the doctrine of premillennialism 
arose. If this low apocalyptic literature which 
bears no stamp of inspiration upon it is re¬ 
sponsible for evolving the glorious doctrine of 
the premillennial coming of Christ, that one 
fact alone is enough to immortalize it and 
entitle it to a place in the canon. The pseu¬ 
donymous writers of this species of literature, 


141 


Apocaiyp tidbm 

however, did not originate the Scriptural doc- 
trine of the premillennial soming of Christ. 
They borrowed the thought from the inspired 
prophets who preceded them. The postmillen- 
nial critics regard the writers of the various 
Apocalypses as a special class of lteerary authors 
who flourished during the period from 200 B. C. 
to 100 A. D. They eliminate the supernatural, 
repudiate divine inspiration and reduce these 
books, including Daniel and the Revelation of 
John, to a mere human contrivance employed 
for the purpose of encouraging the faithful in 
times of trial and persecution. To show that 
we have correctly represented the critical atti¬ 
tude of the modern postmillennialists on this 
question, we will introduce the following testi¬ 
mony. Dr. Driver, the noted Hebrew professor 
and Dean of Oxford, says: “Apocalyptic 
prophecy arose in an age in which there were 
no longer any prophets of the older type. It 
consists essentially of a development and 
adaptation of the ideas and promises expressed 

by the older prophets designed especially with 
the object of affording encouragement and 
consolation to faithful Israelites in a period of 
national distress. They are in most distinctive 
parts imaginative developments. The canonical 
work does not place it in a different literary 
category from the corresponding pon-canomcal 
work or works.” (Daniel, pp. 7 7-85.) 


242 Posimillenm&lism t&id 


i he 


Higher Critics 


Dr. Shailer Mathews, writing on the subject 
of the Apocalypse in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, 
says: ‘The Apocalypse as a literary form of 
Jewish literature first appears during the Hel¬ 
lenistic period. Its forerunner was a description 
of the day of Jehovah. In the Apocalypse we 
thus can see a union of the symbolism and 
myths of Babylon with the religious faith of 
the Jews, under the influence of Hellenistic 
culture. 


“Apocalypse is akin to prophecy. Its pur¬ 
pose was fundamentally to encourage faith in 
Jehovah on the part of those who were in 
distress by revealing the future. The parent 
of Apocalyptic is the Book of Daniel, which, 
by the almost unanimous consent of scholars, 
appeared in the Maccabean period. A stream 
of Apocalypses followed. They constitute a 
unique national literature.” 

Prof. Harris Franklin Rail, following the 
footsteps of the famous critics, takes a similar 
view of the situation. In his chapter on the 
Apocalyptic Hope (Modern Premillennialism) 
he explains how Hebrew prophecy changed to 
Jewish apocalyptic. He ascribes the change 
to the fact that the problem of the individual 
appeared; that the lot of the Jews as a nation 
had changed for the worse; that there was a 
change in the thought of God’s relation to the 
world. He adds that Persian dualism with it§ 


143 


Apocalypticism 

doctrine of spirits may have aided. He states 
that the apocalyptist sees Goa only in the 
past cr the future. That in the apocalyptic a 
world-philosophy takes the place of the proph¬ 
etic sermon, that the apocalyptic scheme is 
strictly deterministic, laying all stress upon de¬ 
liverance through God, but its supernaturalism 
is mechanical; that it is markedly dualistic and 
is here in sharp contrast with the older Hebrew 
faith; it is purely pessimistic. He further de¬ 
clares that it is in this Jewish apocalypticism 
that the most significant origins of premil- 
lennialism are to be found. 

After degrading apocalpticism as being wild, 
imaginative, mechanical, deterministic, pseud¬ 
ographic and purely pessimistic, he still claims 
that, with all its limitations, it rendered a real 
service and expressed certain great truths. It 
sustained faith in days of darkness and great 
trial. It met the problem of individual hope 
by its doctrine of the resurrection. It met a 
moral demand by preaching heaven and hell. 
It gave a philosophy of history. It kept a 
place for the social hope. Over against oppres¬ 
sion and wrong, it asserted in its millennial 
kingdom the idea of a new social order. All 
these redeeming features, in his opinion, consti¬ 
tute the kernel which we derive from the husk 
of apocalypticism. If Professor Rail sees such 
a good kernel in the husk of apocalypticism, 
how can he consistently condemn it as being 


144 PosinilltnniaSsta and I lie Higher Grifcids 

purely pessimistic? Contrasting John the Bap¬ 
tist with the apocalyplists, he says: ‘They 
hide themselves behind the names of an Enoch, 
a Noah, or a Daniel; John spoke out of his 
own heart and in his own person” (p. 56). 

In the following criticism of apocalypticism, 
Professor Rail apparently does not recognize 
much of a kernel in the husk: “We have noted 
the dualism and pessimism of the apocalyptic 
conception; God is distant, evil has the power, 
man is hopeless as to this world, and dreams 
only of the next” (p. 64). 

Dr. George P. Mains devotes a chapter in 
his Modern Premillennialism to “Apocalyptic 
Sources.” He characterizes the apocalyptic 
writings as being of a highly visionary type, 
as marked by an expansion of angelology, as 
being almost invariably pseudonymously writ¬ 
ten, as conveying a message of optimism, tracts 
for hard times, describing the present as a bad 
age, looking to past or future, finally as being 
messianic (pp. 25-33). Let us note in passing 
that Dr. Mains recognizes a message of opti¬ 
mism in apocalypticism, while Professor Rail, 
on the contrary, says it is purely pessimistic. 

Milton S. Terry has produced a ponderous 
volume entitled Biblical Apccalyptics, highly 
praised by the General Catalog of the Metho¬ 
dist Book Concern as “a brilliant example of 
modern methods of exegesis as applied to the 
most difficult passages of Scripture.” Terry 


Apocalypticism 145 

finds traces of apocalypticism practically all 
through the Bible. He does not confine this 
particular style of writing to the so-called 
apocalyptic period of literature of which so 
many modern authors have so much to say. 
But it must be remembered that he is not quite 
so modern and up-to-date as the more recent 
and more rationalistic writers and authors. 

We come next to another Methodist writer— 
George P, Eckman, once editor of the New 
York Christian Advocate. He has given to the 
public two books on Postmillennialism, entitled 
respectively, “When Christ Comes Again" and 
“The Return of the Redeemer." The former is 
recommended by the General Catalog of the 
Methidist Book Concern as giving “a sane and 
tempered view of the scriptural teaching con¬ 
cerning Christ’s second coming. While offering 
an antidote to extreme premillennialsm and 
kindred heresies, the book is constructive rather 
than controversial. It is positive, not negative. 
It is buttressed in Scriptures and its whole out¬ 
look is cheerful and optimistic." The latter is 
a supplement or completion of the former. In 
these two productions the author very clearly 
reflects the modern drift of Methodism. In the 
former book he takes no stock in the idea that 
apocalypticism is a species of literature that 
luxuriously blossomed out in the second century 
B. C. But he devotes an entire chapter in his 
new book on “Tho Kingdom as Apocalypse 


146 PostmilleamisKsm and The Higher Critics 

Pictured it.” Hear him: “At this crisis proph¬ 
ecy in its ancient form seemed to cease. 

Thus in the most trying period of Jewish history 
sturdy trust in Divine Providence raised up a 
class of prophets with a new exposition of the 
purposes of Jehovah. These men produced 
what is known as apocalyptic writing. They 
differed from the earlier prophets in the fact 
that they did not put their prophecies in the 
form of abstract discourse, but in appeals to the 
imagination.” “The vision of Isaiah’s call 
and of Ezekiel’s commission, accompanied as 
they are by mysteries which are beyond human 
wisdom, give us examples of the apocalyptic 
quality before it flowered forth in such variety 
and richness of genius among the latest proph¬ 
ets.” The one characteristic of apoca¬ 
lyptic writing which must impress every one 
is the unvaryng sternness of these prophecies. 
This must be set down chiefly to the crisis out 
of which the apocalyptic takes its rise” (pp. 
94, 95). 

Dr. J.H.Snowden, in his book, “The Coming 
c? the Lord,” thus pronounces his opinion on 
the apocalyptic: “The recent exploration and 
study of the apocalyptic literature of the Jews 
has shown that the books of Daniel and Reve¬ 
lation are only two out of a large body of this 
kind of literature, and its nature and signifi¬ 
cance are now being understood. It is highly 


147 


Apocalypticism 

figurative and symbolical, and is not to be 
interpreted on any strict lines of exegesis, it 
is only pictorial and suggestive to the imagina¬ 
tion, intended to conceal as well as to reveal; 
and therefore it can be used as material and 
basis for doctrine only as it is explained by 
clear Scripture teaching. This has reduced the 
value of these books for doctrinal purposes, 
but not their real value, which was and still is 
their power to give inspirational courage and 
comfort in time of trial.” (pp. 32,33). Again, 
speaking of the capacity of the apocalyptic to 
mystify and conceal, he declares: “Hence the 
apocalyptic form, a kind of literary camouflage 
with which the Jews were familiar and which 
would be plain in its meaning to them.” 

Shirley J. Case, Professor of Early Church 
History and New Testament Interpretation in 
the University of Chicago, and author of two 
books on postmillennialism—“The Millennial 
Hope” and “The Revelation of John”—has ex¬ 
pounded and expatiated on the Apocalypse 
more than any of the writers we 
have hitherto mentioned. He regards the apo¬ 
calyptic as a distinct type of religious 
literature, as a peculiar product of a 
time of adversity. He affirms that, as a rule, 
Apocalypses were written to function in crises; 
that they were essentially tracts for the times. 
He further declares that a belief in the peculiar 
inspiration of the seer as a necessary medium 


148 PostmillesHwalssm and The Higher Critics 

of revelation is a characteristic of all apoca¬ 
lyptic. He is very careful to affirm that the 
Book of Daniel was published to encourage 
patient endurance on the part of pious Jews 
during the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. 
He honestly admits that apocalyptic features 
are present in certain of the prophets, yet he 
insists that prophecy and apocalyptic show 
some fundamental contrasts. He pictures the 
prophet as a preacher of repentance, as working 
for the moral regeneration of men. But the 
apocalyptist, he declares, on the contrary, con¬ 
siders the present world incapable of reforma¬ 
tion, since Satan is temporarily in control of 
affairs. He is forced to concede, however, that 
one must not assume that the apocalyptist has 
no interest in the moral attainments of his 
readers; for he is often, if not usually, quite 
as senstitive to moral excellence as is the 
prophet. He characterizes the apocalyptist as 
a seer rather than a prophet. He then pro¬ 
ceeds to consider the equipment of the seer, 
which, in his opinion, consists of dreams, 
ecstatic visions, ability to pay temporary visits 
to distant places, power to disclose revelations, 
special friendship with the angels or angelic 
instruction. 

Speaking of the apocalyptic style, he says: 
“A free use of allegory is one of the most 
noteworthy features of apocalyptic style.” In 
common W'ith all modern higher critics, Pro- 


149 


Apocalypticism 

fessor Case affirms that the apocalyptic authors 
wrote under assumed names. He is frank to 
confess that such is a literary device, a pious 
fraud. In explanation and apology for this 
deceptive method, he tells his readers that they 
must remember that the literary ethics of two 
thousand years ago were very different from 
that of today. That this pious deception was 
perpetrated in all good conscience, not so much 
with the intention of deceiving the readers as 
with the purpose for providing fitting creden¬ 
tials for a new Divine communication. In other 
words, it is not the deception, but the effect 
of the deception at whch the apocalyptist aims. 
“Prayers and hymns,” says Case, “constitute 
another impressive feature of apocalyptic 
style.” 

But we are not yet through with the “Case.” 
We want the Chicago professor to tell us some¬ 
thing more about these fertile, imaginative, 
Oriental, conscientious, pseudographic apoca¬ 
lyptic writers. Our wish is not in vain. Pro¬ 
fessor Case is ready with the goods. “Fancy,” 
says he, “occasionally painted, highly over¬ 
drawn pictures of the coming age. The fruitful¬ 
ness of the earth was so magnified that the trees 
were to bear ripe fruit every day, and prosperitv 
would be so aboundant that the righteous would 
feast upon cake and clothe themselves in silk. 
An abundance of children would also be insured, 
for every wife would bear children every day. 


150 


Pesiiniilenmaiism and The 


Higher 


Critics 


Occasionally the delights of the messianic ban¬ 
quet were depicted in extravagant imagery. 
One delicacy to be served was the flesh of a 
sea monster slain by God Himself in prepara¬ 
tion for the feast. Another dish would be the 
flesh of oxen reared in Paradise and reserved 
for the occasion. Also the flesh of a mammoth 
bird, and geese so fat that their feathers fell 
out spontaneously, would be served.” That we 
may be perfectly fair, we will quote a little 
further. “These vagaries,” he adds, “do not 
represent the main stream of later Jewish hopes, 
although they have a very natural basis in the 
imagery of early times.” (“Millennial Hope,” 
pp. 105, 106.) 

Dr. J. A. Rice, the Southern Methodist higher 
critic, deals with the apocalyptic question in his 
book, “The Old Testament in the Life of 
Today.” He says: “The prophet is an opti¬ 
mist; the apocalyptic is a pessimist as to this 
world and the present” (p. 2 59). Again he 
says: “Prophecy passed into scribism and 
scribism through cold storage into apocalyptic” 
(p. 253). “The apocalyptic became the vent 
for the pent-up fury of his suffering people,”’ 
(p. 260). Rice has a unique way of describing 
the pseudonymous character of the apocalyptic. 
“If anybody had anything to say from 175 B. C. 
to 100 A. D., he was likely to speak in the 
name of some great man in the past—Daniel, 
Enoch, Moses, Ezra, Baruch, Abraham” (p. 


151 


Apocalypticism 

259). He puts Daniel in the apocalyptic group 
of pseudonymous writers. 

He positively states that Christianity came 
out of the apocalyptic movement (p. 261 ). 
He had just said that the apocalyptic came 
through cold storage from scribism. Think of 
it! Prophecy passed into scribism and scribism, 
through cold storage, into apocalyptic. And out 
of the apocalyptic came Christianity. This, to 
say the least, is not very complimentary to 
Christianity. But, on the other hand, if Chris¬ 
tianity came out of the apocalyptic, how can 
critics characterize apocalypticism, as regards 
this age, as purely pessimistic? (“Modern Pre- 
millennialism,” by Rail, p. 45.) 

To sum up, we have seen, according to these 
representative critical postmillennialists, that 
the main features of the apocalyptic are as 
follows: 

1. Written in periods of distress; tracts for 
the times. 

2. Purely pessimistic as to present age. 
Present world hopeless. 

3. Dualistic. 

4. Point to future or past. 

5. Angelology emphasized. 

6. Pseudographic—written under assumed 
names. 

7. Abound in dreams and visions. 

8. Highly symbolic. 

9. Appeal especially to the imagination. 


152 Postmiliennialism and Ike Higher Critics 

10. Unvarying - sternness. 

11. Claims of inspiration. 

12. Composed of Babylonian myths, Jewish 
faith and Greek culture. 

13. Arose in an age after true prohpets, or 
in the Greek and Maccabean period. 

Much of the above matter is not the exclu¬ 
sive possession of the apocalyptic, as the critics 
claim, but is common property throughout the 
Bible. Many books of the Bible furnish con¬ 
solation for the persecuted in periods of dark¬ 
ness and distress—nothing better on this line 
than the Psalms and the Book of Job. In 
fact, the Bible as a whole is a mighty good 
panacea for all kinds of religious or political 
persecution. The entire Scriptures are tracts 
for the times—for evil times, good times and 
all times! 

If the opinion that the world, as a whole, 
will not be converted during the gospel dis¬ 
pensation constitutes the pessimism of the 
apocalyptic, then the entire Bible itself is 
apocalyptic, for it certainly does not teach that 
the whole world will be won for Christ in this 
age. 

If apocalyptic dualism means that there is 
a real devil in the world, then the Old Testa¬ 
ment and the New Testament are apocalyptic. 
The trail of the serpent runs all through the 


Apocalypticism 153 

Bible. This was not borrowed from Persian 
dualism, as Professor Rail intimates. The Bible 
teaches that there is a personal devil just as 
surely as it teaches that there is a personal 
God. It is useless to charge this view up to 
the Persians and the Jewish apocalyptists. It 
is an exaggeration, a hyperbole, to say that 
the apocalyptists looked entirely to the past 
or the future, and completely ignored the pre¬ 
sent. They, indeed, put the emphasis on 
the past and the future, but they also gave 
a certain amount of consideration to 
the present On the other hand, the 
prophets did not deal exclusively with 
the present. While they played a prominent 
part in the present, they harked back to the 
past and also predicted the future. Angelology 
is given by the critics as another characteristic 
feature of the apocalypic literature. We can 
hear the rustle of angels’ wings from the first 
of Genesis to the last of Revelation. A com¬ 
plete concordance will show how many times 
the angels are mentioned in the Bible. The 
postmillennialists have slipped a cog in their 
classical characterization of the apocalyptic. 
If the recognition of angels puts the apocalyptic 
seal upon a document, then the Bible is prac¬ 
tically apocalyptic from one end to the other. 
But Dr. Mains says the apocalyptic is noted for 
an expansion of angelology. We reply that 


154 Postmillennialism and The Higher Critics 

expansion is not an exclusive possession. It 
indicates a difference in degree only. Then 
talk about dreams and visions as a distinguish¬ 
ing feature of apocalypticism! The prophets 
had dreams and visions in abundance. So to 
dream dreams and see visions is no distinguish¬ 
ing mark of the apocalyptist. We grant that 
false dreams and visions differentiate the latter 
uninspired apocalyptic writers from the true 
prophets. But the critics do not recognize this 
trade-mark. Ah, no! They dare not draw the 
line of demarcation between the true and the 
false. This would immediately expose their 
fallacy and finish them in short order. 

Unvarying sternness is cited by Dr. Eckman 
as one of the main earmarks of apocalypticism. 
What a discovery! It must be one of the 
official findings of modern thought! Is any¬ 
thing in apocalypticism more stern than the 
Mosaic law and the awful denunciations deliv¬ 
ered bv the prophets against the popular sins 
of their times? 

The claim of inspiration is given by Pro¬ 
fessor Case as a special mark of apocalypti¬ 
cism. Was such a claim a new thing under 
the sun? The prophets who came before the 
apocalyptists claimed to be inspired.. Is this, 
then, a distinguishing feature of the apoca¬ 
lyptist? Think of such a flimsy argument! 
The critical theory on apocalypticism will not 
stand the test. It is literally full of fallacies. 


Apocalypticism 155 

The apocalyptic, we are told, is highly 
symbolic and appeals to the imagination. But 
Ezekiel is symbolic and appeals to the imagi¬ 
nation. Moreover, he was a true prophet prior 
to the Greek age and the Maccabean period. 
The postmillennial critics, seeing this difficulty, 
try to evade it by affirming that there are 
certain apocalyptic elements in Isaiah and 
Ezekiel. Thus they try to avoid one diff iculty, 
only to plunge into a greater difficulty. They 
have tried in vain to draw a hard and fast line 
of distinction between the true prophet and 
the apocalyptist. They desire to make the 
prophet a mere preacher, a moral reformer, 
a forthteller instead of a foreteller. They con¬ 
fine him to the present and limit his horD-* 
to the age in which he lived. On the other 
hand, they treat the 'apocalyptist as a green- 
goggle-eyed pessimist and prognosticator. But 
the discovery of apocalyptic elements in the 
prophets and of prophetic elements in the 
apocalyptists throws the critics into confusion 
and calls for a better line of demarcation. The 
critics are unable to draw this line. Their 
theological compass is incorrect. The old, 
orthodox, conservative survey drew the line 
between the inspired and the uninspired, the 
authoritative and the unauthoritative, the 
canonical and the uncanonical, the genuine and 

the spurious, the true 'and the false. They put 
the prophets, Daniel and John, on one side 


156 Postmiilennialism and 1 he Higher Critics 

of this line and the apocryphal writers on the 
other side. As a matter of course, this division 
does not set well with the modem postmil- 
lennial critics, who put Daniel in the wrong 
pew along with the uninspired apocryphal or 
spurious apocalyptic literature. Their luminous 
and voluminous writings are noted for the 
following earmarks and mistakes: 

1. They make too great a difference be¬ 
tween the prophet and the inspired apocalyptist 
—a difference in kind, whereas there is only a 
difference in degree. 

2. They make too small a difference be¬ 
tween the inspired, canonical Apocalypse and 
the uninspired, unauthoritative Apocalypses, a 
difference in degree, whereas there is a dif¬ 
ference in kind? 

3. They fail to make any clear distinction 
between the Apocrypha on the one hand and 
the Apocalypses on the other. There are only 
one or two apocalyptic books in the Apocrypha. 
For the most part, the Apocrypha is as far 
in advance of the Apocalypses as the Old Tes¬ 
tament is superior to the Apocrypha. 

4. They fail to make a clear distinction be¬ 
tween the Old Testament and the Apocrypha. 
If they make any distinction at all, it is only 
a difference in degree. But there is a vast 
difference in kind between the inspired Old 
Testament and the uninspired Apocrypha. 


157 


Apocalypticism 

There is still a greater difference, of course, 
between the Old Testament and the wild Apoca¬ 
lypses. 

The critics and the Roman Catholics, with 
opposite methods, both blot out the distinction 
between the Old Testament and the Apocrypha. 
The Catholics canonized the Apocrypha at the 
Council of Trent, 1546. The critics uncanon¬ 
ized the Old Testament during the latter part of 
the nineteenth century. The Catholics, 
therefore, brought up the Apocrypha to 
the level of the Bible, while the cri¬ 
tics brought down the Bible, to the level 
of the Apocrypha. But the facts in the case 
defeat both parties. The Catholics cannot, in 
reality, canonize the Apocrypha, nor can the 
critics uncanonize the Old Testament. The 
line of distinction between the inspired Scrip¬ 
tures of the Old Testament and the uninspired 
Apocrypha is too great to be obliterated either 
by ecclesiastical councils or critical conclusions. 

Let us look the following facts connected 
with the Apocrypha full in the face: 

1. The Apocryphal books were not quoted 
by the fathers and the church as final authority. 

2. They were not read in the churches as 
authoritative. 

3. They were not appealed to In debates. 

4. They were not noticed as authoritative 
by the adversaries of Christianity. 


158 Fostmillenmalism and! The Higher Critics 

5. There were no commentaries written 
upon them. 

A glance into the books themselves ought 
to convince anyone that they are not inspired. 
In fact, the writer of II Maccabees (15: 38) 
expressly disclaims inspiration and authority. 
1 Maccabees plainly teaches that there was no 
prophet among the people. (I Mac. 4:44-46; 
14:41; 9: 27.) 

In another place in the Apocrypha it is stated 
that “Alms do deliver from death.” (Toblt 

4: 10.) 


A lie is justified and suicide is approved. 
Tobit affirms that the devil was driven away 
by the smoke of a fish’s heart and liver. (Tobit 
6: 7, 8.) The critic certainly has great gall to 
put the Old Testament down to the level of 
such books. We all know that it takes more 
than smoke to chase away the devil. 

The Jews did not recognize the Apocrypha 
as inspired. Josephus expressly says that it 
was not of the like authority with the Scrip¬ 
tures. Philo, the learned Jew, does not refer 
to it authoritatively as he does to the Old 
Testament, and it is not endorsed by the New 
Testament references as was the Jewish Canon. 
Jesus quoted from Daniel, but not from the 
uninspired Apocrypha. The Jews distinguished 
the -sacred and inspired Scriptures of the Old 
Testament from all other productions—the 


Apocalypticism 159 

Apocrypha, the Apocalypses, the Mishna and 
the Talmud. 

We have shown how far inferior the 
Apocrypha is to the Old Testament. There 
is even a greater difference between the Scrip¬ 
tures and the later Jewish Apocalypses. Take 
the Book of Enoch, for instance. It is the 
most curious of the spurious. Enoch is repre¬ 
sented as being carried through mid-air and 
transported to the tenth heaven, where he re¬ 
mains for an entire month and then returns to 
the earth. (Now think of postmillennialists 
quoting from this spurious book.) They trace 
the origin of premillennialism to this and 
other similar apocalyptic productions. To show 
that we are not misrepresenting these gentle¬ 
men, we will give quotations. Dr. George P. 
Eckman says: 'Though the millenarian idea 
nowhere appears in the inspired Scriptures of 
the Old Testament, it does come out in the 
uninspired writings of the Jews after the 
biblical period of prophecy was over.” (“The 
Return of the Redeemer,” p. 204.) Professor 
Rail declares: “It is in this Jewish npocalypti- 
cism that the most significant origins of rre- 
millennialism are to be found.” (“Modern 
Premillennialism,” p. 54.) Again he savs: 
“The first appearance of this idea of an inter¬ 
mediate kingdom is probably in 1 Enoch 93: 
3-10; 91: 12-17, which Professor Charles 
puts at about B. C. 100” (Ibid., p, 52). 


!€0 PostmiUsnnialism and The Higher Critics 

The Book of Daniel is the storm-center of 
the polemical battle between the premillennial 
conservatives and the radical postmillennial 
critics. The whole critical argument on apoca¬ 
lypticism fails of conclusion and falls to the 
ground if the genuineness, authenticity and 
historicity of the Book of Daniel can be estab¬ 
lished. The critics realize that it is a ground¬ 
hog case, that they must destroy Daniel or 
Daniel will destroy them. The critics claim 
that the book was a Maccabean forgery, com¬ 
posed of Babylonian myths, Jewish faith and 
Greek culture, and written about the year 166 
B. C. The purpose of its production, according 
to the critics, was to encourage patient endur¬ 
ance on the part of pious Jews who were 
persecuted by Antiochus Epiphanes. Professor 
Shirley Case thus expresses the critical view: 
‘The unknown author of the so-called Book of 
Daniel, living in the days 'of the Syrian perse¬ 
cution about 167 B. C., composed his book to 
represent the experiences of Daniel, who was 
assumed to have lived some four hundred years 
earlier, in the time of the Babylonian exile. 

* * * This pious deception was perpetrated 
in all good conscience.” (“The Revelation of 
John,” p. 12.) The arguments made by the 
critics for the later date and fictitious character 
of the Book of Daniel may be briefly summed 
up as follows:— 


Apocalypticism 161 

1. The book was placed in the Third Divi¬ 
sion of Jewish Scriptures, The Hagiographa, 
and not among the prophets. 

2. The Greek words for the musical instru¬ 
ments used in connection with worship of the 
Golden Image indicate that the book was writ¬ 
ten during the Greek period. Professor Driver 
declares that this consideration demands a later 
date for Daniel. 

3. Historical inaccuracies in regard to the 
time that Nebuchadnezzer began to reign are 
inconsistent with the early authorship of the 
book and favor a later date. (Dan. 1:1,2; 
Jer. 25: 1.) 

4. The son of Sirach, in giving a list of the 
great men in the Jewish nation, omits Daniel. 

5. The sudden transition from the definite 
description of the first three empires to the 
indefinite references to the fourth empire points 
to the later chronological position of the author. 

6. The historical environment and back¬ 
ground of the book point to periods of perse¬ 
cution and days of distress such as Antiochus 
Epiphanes instigated. 

7. The apocalyptic character of the book 
naturally places it in the apocalyptic period 
of Jewish literature which dates from about 

200 B. C. to 100 A. D, 


1C2 Poeimiilennialsm and The Higher Critics 

8. This view is favored by the almost uni¬ 
versal consensus of modern scholarship. 

Yes, indeed, it is supported by infidels, ag¬ 
nostics, deists, pantheists, free thinkers, ration¬ 
alists, destructive critics compromising critics 
and postmillennialists. Porphyry, the wicked 
assailant of Christianity in the third century, 
claimed that the Book of Daniel was not 
written during the exile, but centuries later 
in the Maccabean period. Kuenen, Wellhau- 
sen, Dean Driver, Canon Farrar, George Adam 
Smith, A. C. Briggs, Shailer Mathews, Charles 
Foster Kent and even Rail, Snowden and Mains 
all unite with the celebrated infidel to form a 
solid phalanx on this side of the question. We 
may also include in this list the 228 postmil- 
lennialist professors drummed up from twenty- 
seven theological seminaries by Professor 
Snowden. As Sir Robert Anderson suggests. 
Daniel is certainly in the critic’s den. 

In the foregoing arguments we have fairly 
represented and clearly stated the critic’s posi¬ 
tion. We will now reply to each point in their 
argument and show that their view of the 
question is incorrect. 

(a) The place a book occupies in the canon 
does not uncanonize it. The fact that Daniel 
is in the Third Division of the Jewish Scrip¬ 
tures, the Hagiographa, cuts no feature. It is 
in the canon to stay. If the critical theory of 


Apocalypticism 16^ 

the origin and nature of the book were correct, 
it would not be in the canon at all. The burden 
of proof, therefore, is upon the critics to show 
why it is in the canon at all, and not upon the 
conservatives to show why it is in the Third 
Division of the canon. Daniel was not only 
a prophet, ibut he was classed among the wise 
men or magicians of Babylon, and he was also 
a politician, statesman, an office holder in the 
Babylonian Empire. This explains why the 
Jews placed his book in the Hagiographa 
(Holy Writings) instead of putting it along 
with the prophets pure and simple. It is true 
jome of the prophets were also priests, but 
this is quite different from being a member 
of the king’s cabinet in a foreign country which 
had conquered and kept the Jews in bondage. 

(b) The two or three Greek words are names 
of musical instruments. If the Book of Daniel, 
as the critics claim, belonged to the Greek 
period clear down to the year 166 B. C., it 
would evidently reflect more of Grecian culture 
than the names of two or three musical instru¬ 
ments. The Greeks, while not a great con¬ 
quering nation, yet existed at the time of the 
exile. There were Greek colonies on the coast 
of Palestine in the time of Hezekiah. Their 
musical instruments preceded their conquest 
of the world. 

(c) There is no historical inaccuracy in the • 
Book of Daniel. The apparent conflict between 


X€4 Po£imiilennialism and The Higher Cr.ties 

the first year and third year of Nebuchadnez¬ 
zar’s reign had reference first to the time of 
his joint-rulership with his father and second 
to his sole sovereignty of the empire. 

(d) The critics are like a drowning man 
catching at a straw when they attempt to build 
an argument on the omission of Daniel’s name 
from the list given in Ecclesiasticus by the son 
of Sirach. The name of Ezra is also omitted 
from the list, but Nehemiah, who was con¬ 
nected with Ezra, is mentioned. Ezekiel, who 
mentions Daniel (Ezek. 14: 14) is included in 
the list. Heroditus, in his history, omits the 
name of Nebuchadnezzar and ascribes the glory 
of Babylon to others. Does this prove that 
Nebuchadnezzar never lived or reigned in 
Babylon? Daniel is mentioned in the 11th 
of Hebrews—“who stopped the mouths of 
lions.” This more than makes up for the omis¬ 
sion of his name in the uninspired book of 
Ecclesiasticus. 

(e) The keen-eyed critics seem to see quite 
a sudden transformation from certainty to un¬ 
certainty after the description of Antiochus 
Epiphanes. Here is where the critics seek to 
eliminate the predictive element from prophecy. 
Dr. Shailer Mathews boldly says that all the 
events described by the author of the book 
up to and including the time of Antiochus are 
given post-eventum. In other words, they are 
simply history and not prophecy at all. This 


Apocalypticism 165 

was the contention of Porphyry. If all the 
descriptions in the Book of Daniel are post- 
eventum, then the critics will have to change 
dates again and say the book was written after 
the crucifixion of Christ. For after the ‘‘seventy 
sevens” the Messiah shall come and shall be 
cut off. Dean Farrar identifies the “Anointed 
one that shall be cut off” as the high priest 
Onias III. But why labor to locate the Messiah 
at all? Professor Case can help the critics out 
of this difficulty. He cuts the Gorgon knot 
by saying: “There is really no Messiah at all 
in Daniel, but only God and the angels working 
together to bring about the redemption of the 
afflicted people.” (“The Millennial Hope,” p. 
35.) Think of it! No Messiah at all in Daniel! 
Who would have thought that the “Case knife” 
of criticism was keen enough to cut the idea 
of the Messiah out of the Book rn Daniel? 
The saucy and incisive professor goes on to 
say: “The hopes of the writer of Daniel, like 
those of his prophetic predecessors, failed* of 
fulfillment.” (“Millennial Hope,” p. 86.) Re¬ 
member that Professor Rail and Professor 
Snowden both point with pride to the produc¬ 
tions of Professor Case. Can anyone longer 
doubt that we are living in the days of the 
Great Apostasy? 

(f) The Book of Daniel, they tell us, is a 
product of a crisis; that it arose out of troublous 


166 Poetmillenniriism and The Higfeer Critics 

times, and was intended as a fictitious antidote 
for the afflicted Jews. To listen to these critics 
one would think that the only trouble the Jews 
ever had, as a nation, was during the persecu¬ 
tion of Anliochus Epiphanes, and that the only 
means of comfort left them was a pious fraud 
and a fable! Could not the real, genuine Bock 
of Daniel, coming as history from the time of 
the Exile, comfort the afflicted Jews a thousand 
times more than a pious fraud, a forgery and 
Dble produced at the time of the Syrian perse¬ 
cution and palmed off on the people? Let the 
Jews themselves, and not the critics, tell us 
what they had to comfort them in the dark 
days of their distress. Jonathan said: “We 
have the holy books of Scripture in our hands 
to comfort us.” (Mac. 12:9.) This sounds the 
death knell of the critical theory. 

(g) Does the apocalyptical element in Dan¬ 
iel determine the time it was written? Was the 
apocalyptic style unknown before 200 B. C. ? 
Prof. M. S. Terry points out traces of apoca¬ 
lyptic in numerous places in the Old Testament. 
Most of the critics admit that there are ele¬ 
ments of the apocalyptic in the prophets. This 
proves that the apocalyptic form was in exist¬ 
ence before 200 B. C. The Book of Daniel 

must be divorced from all the cheap, uninspired 
apocalypses that followed it. There are 'fifty 
apocryphal gospels that followed the four 


Apoc«lyptickn 167 

authoritative gospels of the New Testament. 
Will the critics blot out the line of distinction 
between Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and 
these spurious apocryphal gospels? The fact, 
then, that much of Daniel is in the form of an 
apocalypse does not militate in the least against 
its exilian authorship. 

(h) Scholarship! It is a reflection on one’s 
scholarship to claim that scholarship can settle 
all questions. This is partisanship, not scholar¬ 
ship. The scholarship of the world has never 
been on one side of any question. Scholars 
are divided and disagree as well as the common 
people. Scholarship alone can never fully and 
finally settle any question. The sailors, for 
instance, assisted the Scholars in demonstrating 
the rotundity of the earth. It was not the 
work of scholars alone. Those who magnify 
and deify scholarship merely demonstrate the 
fact that they themselves are not scholars. 
Dr. Mains and Professor Snowden both unduly 
emphasize scholarship. "Scholarship alone,” 
says Dr. Mains, "will finally and triumphantly 
close the debate.” ("Premillennialism,” p. 53.) 
Professor Snowden declares that modern 
Biblical scholarship has superseded “the old 
method of proving a doctrine by texts picked 
cut and patched together to suit the thing to 
be proved.” (The Coming of the Lord.” p. 
3 3.) He boasts that the entire weight of 


168 Postmillennialism ?nd The Higher Critic* 

scholarship as represented by the Expositors’ 
Greek Testament, The International Critical 
Commentary, Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, 
and The Encyclopedia Brittanica is against 
premillennarianism. (“The Coming of the 
Lord,” p. 244.) He even asserts that “it would 
be hard to find any recognized first-class 
Hebrew or Greek exegetical scholars and sys¬ 
tematic theologians holding it today. (Ibid., 
P. 34.) The entire scholarship of the world is 
far from being confined to these ponderous 
volumes cited with such suavity and satisfac¬ 
tion by Professor Snowden. He is attempting 
to try the case by ex parte evidence, by intro¬ 
ducing the witnesses on one side only. There 
has never been a single proposition put forward 
bv destructive higher critics but what has been 
fully met and refuted by men equally as 
scholarly. 

Let us sum up the arguments in favor of the 
early or exilian authorship of Daniel. 

1. It is in the canon. The canon was closed 
in the time of Artaxerxes Longinus, which was 
hundreds of years before the Maccabean date 
(166 B. C.) fixed for the book by the critics. 
No book written after the voice of true proph¬ 
ecy ceased ever found its way into the Old 
Testament canon. There was no true prophet 
during the Maccabean period. 

2. Josephus recognized the Book of Daniel 


169 


Apocalypticism 

as historical and canonical, according to the 
following quotation from his works: “The 
Book of Daniel, which he will find among the 
sacred writings.” 

3. When Alexander the Great came to Jeru¬ 
salem in the year 332 B. C., Jaddua, the high 
priest, according to Josephus, showed him the 
prophecies of Daniel. Of Course, the critics re¬ 
ject this as tradition. It is to their interest to do 
so, but they cannot refute it. 

4. The exact historical knowledge of the 
writer favors the early and exilian authorship 
of the book. Xenophon speaks of the king 
being slain at night. 

5. The very language of the book is entirely 
against the Maccabean date of authorship. The 
Hebrew would not have been so pure if written 
in 166 B. C., while the Chaldee of Daniel, as 
compared with the Targums, is pure, unmixed. 
By 100 B. C. the old Hebrew disappeared from 
use and gradually passed into Aramaic. 

6. The symbolic form of Daniel, the men¬ 
tion of the river banks, and the general his¬ 
torical setting, the absence of prayers and 
ejaculations in narrating the experience in the 
den of lions, all go to show the real as opposed 
to the fictitious character of the book. 

7. The predictive element of the book as 
demonstrated in the Messianic prophecy of the 
seventy weeks is valid and inviolable. It is 


17G Poetroillenniolism and The Higher Critics 

the impregnable rock against which critical 
poslmillennialism is shattered. 

8. Jesus Christ puts His seal and sanction 
on the early authorship of the book. This for¬ 
ever settles the question in dispute. In His 
great eschatological discourse, Jesus declared: 
“When ye therefore shall see the abomination 
of desolation, spoken by Daniel the prophet, 
stand in the holy place.” (Matt. 24: 15.) Here 
is where the critics meet their Waterloo, their 
Marne, their Verdun. They naturally hate to 
give up. They die hard. They may talk about 
the accommodation theory; they may say that 
Christ adopted the current Jewish notions of 
His day; they may expand and expatiate on 
the Kenotic theories of Christ's limitation; 
they may put on a bold front and affirm with 
George Jackson that “It is now admitted on 
all hands that Christ's authority cannot be 
invoked to invalidate the findings of modern 
biblical criticism”; they may say with Professor 
Eiselen of Garrett that Christ did not give a 
formal argument in proof of the Old Testa¬ 
ment; they may complain with McFaydden that 
the conservatives would block all further scien¬ 
tific inquiry by putting Christ across the path¬ 
way of critical investigation, but their cause 
is weak and their case is hopeless. 


Apocalypticism 171 

Let us introduce the testimony of Dr. Adam 
Clarke, one of the world's greatest commenta¬ 
tors. In arguing that Daniel is the author of 
the book, he says: The chief facts and inci¬ 
dents of his history are so particularly woven 
throughout the book bearing his name and 
undoubtedly written by himself that they need 
not be detailed here." Again he says: 'This 
prophet, therefore, far from occupying a lower 
place among divinely-inspired men, deserves 
to be placed in the front rank with all those 
who have been most distinguished among the 
men who have partaken most largely of the 
prophetic gift." a As a writer, this prophet is 
simple, yet pure and correct—-Daniel writes 
both Hebrew and Chaldee with great purity." 

We have already shown that the apocryphal 
books bear the marks of spuriousness. The 
Old and New Testament, in contradistinction 
to the Apocrypha, bear the following marks of 
genuineness: 

1. Treated with supreme regard and as final. 

2. United at an early period in a distinct 
volume. 

3. Publicly read and expounded as authori¬ 
tative in the congregation. 

4. Commentaries written upon the books. 

5. Agreement of the church as to the au¬ 
thentic books, 


172 Pestmillemiialism and The Higher Critics 

6. Agreement among various sects of here¬ 
tics to the same. 

Finally, in view of all the foregoing facts, 
we are fully justified in concluding that pre- 
millennialism is founded upon the Bible, the 
authoritative and revealed Word of God, and 
not upon the uninspired apocalyptic literature 
as the higher critics falsely charge. 

ANDREW JOHNSON. 


CHAPTER VII. 


“The Return of the Redeemer,” 
by George P. Eckman. 

Mr. Eckman says, “Among the earliest 
Christians a favorite watchword was ‘Mara- 
natha.’ ” He tells us correctly that this is an 
Aramaic word which means “the Lord cometh.” 
Then he adds, “Possibly the expression was a 
kind of password or countersign, uttered by 
believers as a token of recognition when they 
were among their enemies, or as a term of 
friendly encouragement in time of peril. It 
conveyed a faith which sustained the early 
Christians in their conflict with the powers of 
the world. It has come down the centuries 
as the symbol of a deathless hope” (p. 10). 
Further on he says, “No conviction has more 
stubbornly withstood the assaults of critics. It 
has been spurned as ridiculous, flouted as inju¬ 
rious, denounced as unreasonable, and even 
denied on alleged scriptural grounds; but it has 
not been destroyed.” 

Having filed certain objections to what he 
considers unsound teaching upon our Lord’s 
return, Mr. Eckman says: “In his true char¬ 
acter (Christ) is to be set forth in the sight of 
all who have dwelt on the face of the earth 
since time began- It is not too much to hope 


174 ?oslm‘Ueoniailsm and The Higher Critics 

that when that overpowering revelation of his 
eternal might and sacrificial love for mankind 
has been made, millions who have withstood 
the appeals of his ministers will turn to him 
in perfect faith” (p. 23). 

Concerning the Greek words rendered “com¬ 
ing,” or used to refer to the return of our 
Lord, he has this to say: “The first and most 
frequently used is parousia, which has been 
taken over into our language without change, 
being a technical term for the second coming, 
which is often in theological works called ‘the 
parousia.’ The literal meaning of the word is 
‘present, or ‘being present.’ It almost always 
denotes such a presence as brings an absence 
to an end, and not a presence which has been 
continuous or unbroken. Hence it may be 
properly used in the sense of ‘coming’ or 
‘arriving,’ and is so translated several times in 
the New Testament in connection with the jour¬ 
neys of persons from one place to another. 
The word appears twenty-four times,-and in 
sixteen places it refers to the second coming 
of our Lord.” He adds, “It is hard to see how 
it can signify in these passages (referring to a 
number of Scripture references given) anything 
other than the personal return of the Savior. 

“Another word for the same event is 
apokahspsis, from which we derive our English 
term ‘apocalypse.’ It occurs nineteen times in 
the New Testament, and its meaning in connect 


“Ihs Return of the Redeemer” 175 

tion with the second coming is evident. * * * 
It is a fit word to express the personal return 
of our Lord. 

“A third word of significance is epiphansia, 
from which we get our English equivalent 
‘epiphany.’ This word is found ten times in 
the New Testament. In eight places it evi¬ 
dently refers to the second advent. The most 
natural meaning of the word in that connection 
is the visible manifestation of the Lord in 
person,” (pp. 25, 26, 27). 

If Mr. Eckman were as sound in all his 
writings as in the extracts we here present, we 
could most heartily endorse his book. Unfor¬ 
tunately, some of his teachings are not so 
worthy of acceptance. He falls into the same 
type of error, though not so pronounced, as 
Campbell and others. Thopgh he is more pro¬ 
nounced on the great future coming, the per¬ 
sonal advent of Jesus, than some of the others, 
he nevertheless speaks of several different 
“comings.” He says: “The key to the seeming 
contradictions in the words of Jesus about his 
coming again is found in the fact that he was 
not always speaking about the same thing” 
(p. 43). Then he goes on to mention several 
things he styles “a coming” of the Lord. 
Among these are His rising from the dead, the 
outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, the 
entrance of the Spirit into Christian life, etc. 
Now, it seems to me that Mr. Eckman and all 


ITS Posimillennialhm and The Higher Critic* 

these other writers could find a better key to 
this subject than any they have heretofore 
presented. If they would in their thinking 
and writing draw a clear distinction between 
the humanity and the deity of our Lord, they 
would get a better conception of the subject. 
All these so-called “comings” that precede the 
great final coming, the glorious, visible, per¬ 
sonal advent of our Lord, pertain to the coming 
of Christ in Godhead. Thus He comes in con¬ 
viction upon sinners, in regenerating power 
upon penitent believers, and in sanctifying full¬ 
ness upon the consecrated faithful. None of 
these many comings have any reference what¬ 
ever to the return of Jesus, Son of Man, Son 
of Mary. They are all fulfilled in the recurring 
manifestations of Godhead. 

But the one great and long-expected avent 
known as the second coming or -personal 
advent of our Lord lies yet ahead, and shall 
have one, and but cna fulfillment. This will 
be at the time of the raising of the holy dead, 
the translation of the holy living, the binding 
of Satan, the destruction of the Beast and the 
False Prophet, and the inauguration of the 
millennium. If these distinctions be kept in 
mind, all the fallacies about an interminable 
number of comings will be at an end. Just 
why anyone should care to confuse themselves, 
to mislead others, and to bring on a theological 
stew, when the whole thing is easily under- 


“The Return of the RecSeojiser” 177 

stood by the thought we have just mentioned, 
seems remarkably strange. The Christ, God 
dwelling among His people, entering open 
hearts, and dwelling with His faithful, coming 
among them at times with great quickening, 
should not in any sense be confused with the 
matchless revelation of the second Adam, the 
glorified humanity of our Redeemer, victor 
over death and hell, Judge of all men, and 
ultimate Federal Head of the whole human 
family. 

This doctrine of many comings is largely 
responsible for the confusion of thought and 
teaching that is today spread abroad among 
the people. There is absolutely but one glorious 
second coming in visible majesty and kingly 
power of the “Son of man.” It is of this 
personal return of Jesus as a man that it is 
so many times affirmed that He shall be seen 
coming in the clouds with power and great 
glory. Of this advent the Bible gives no uncer¬ 
tain sound, nor does it lend itself to any post- 
millennial fallacy. When He comes men shall 
see Him, nations shall submit to Him, wrongs 
shall be righted, tyrants overthrown, the beastly 
armies of wickedness and the corrupting forces 
of hell shall be crushed, driven out in endless 
confusion, and absolutely and forever over¬ 
whelmed. 

Eckman Joins the Critics. 

In a former book, Mr. Eckman was careful 


17S P^stinillennialism asidl The Higher Critics 

to not commit himself to that type of infidelity 
known as higher critics; but in the book now 
before us he has somewhat abandoned his 
former orthodoxy and is using the methods of 
the critics. 

(a) The Apocalyptic Method. Mr. Eckman 
says: “If these apocalyptists handled things 
beyond the power of men to know, and were 
thus forced to use symbolism, they cannot be 
judged by the same tests we apply to other 
prophets. They do not set forth facts, but 
pictures of the imagination. If they use events 
in the life of a nation or experience of indi¬ 
viduals, they fill them with inspired fancy. 
Their disclosures are ideal rather than actual. 
What in other writers would be dry chronicles 
are by them glorified into visions. We must 
not, therefore, look for sober history in such 
writers, nor can we find in them predictions 
stating in exact terms things which are to come 
to pass” (p. 96). 

So he recognizes the apocalyptic writers as 
“prophets.” Their work, however, is a matter 
of Taney” and does not contain anything that 
may be considered in the light of “exact” 
history. Bear in mind, reader, that Daniel, 
John, and other Bible writers that used symbols 
in their teaching are apocalyptists, in the light 
of these postmillcnnial writers. We may not 
be surprised, therefore, at some further things 
we will find in the pages under review. 


‘‘The Return of the Redeemer” 179 

(b) DaniePs Fervid Imagination. “The dis¬ 
tinguishing quality of the kingdom portrayed 
in the Book of Daniel is its sprituality; and the 
divine power by which it is to save Israel and 
bless the world shines out of all the pictures of 
triumph drawn by the writer’s rervid imagina¬ 
tion” (p. 100). 

What becomes of inspiration? Daniel did 
not receive the symbolic figures by vision from 
heaven, as he claimed, but he drew them out 
of his own “fervid imagination.” The book, 
then, is a product of a fanciful enthusiast 
rather than a revelation from the skies. 

(c) The Prophet’s Lofty Musings. From 
what has gone before, we are not surprised at 
that which follows. “Here they (Daniel’s 
doctrines) are wrapped in those weird apoca¬ 
lyptic garments which in the later prophets 
began to displace the more practical and prosaic 
clothing of an earlier age. The more mys¬ 
terious became the blending of heaven and 
earth in their conceptions of the kingdom of 
God, the more highly wrought became the 
imagery with which they sought to express 
their lofty musings” (p. 104). 

Mr. Eckman tells us that in the time inter¬ 
vening between the Old Testament and the 
New “these apocalyptic dreams increased even 
to the point of excessive symbolism.” So 
Daniel, like the others whom he denominates 
f ‘apocalyptists,” was simply a dreamer! 


ICO Postmillennialism and Fhe Higher Critics 

(d) Apostolic Mistakes. Speaking of the 
apostles, he says: ‘They had no expectation 
that the world was going to endure but for a 
short period. They saw things moving to a 
head. Matters were growing worse in their 
day, which they thought to be the ‘end of the 
age.’ We know that ‘the last times’ meant 
to the prophets the crisis that they were pre¬ 
dicting at the moment and which they expected 
to appear in the near future. This also was the 
case with the New Testament writers. Every 
passage from Paul and the other apostles, 
speaking of the perils that were ahead, referred 
to the age in which they w r ere living. Paul 
and the others had no thought of the twentieth 
century after Christ. They could not imagine 
this dispensation in which they lived lasting 
so long.” It is not surprising, therefore, that 
the writer should add, “It is utterly impossible 
to make the words of the apostles fit our age” 
(pp. 180-181). So we have no apostolic or 
prophetic light upon our age. Those prophecies 
that our fathers read as a chart of the ages 
were but, as one postmillennialist has expressed 
it, “tracts for bad times.” 

If the prophetic outline does not reach the 
twentieth century, then where does it end ? 
What advantage has the Christian over the 
adherent of any other religion? They had 
their moralists, Buddha, Confucius, and other 
pagans produced moral maxims that became 


“The Return of the Redeemer” 181 

the basis of the religious movements that they 
founded. But they had no light on the future. 
Neither by dreams, visions, nor revelations 
could they portray the things that are to be. 
Only God could foretell the unknown, and 
chart the ages that are yet unborn. But accord¬ 
ing to the critics our sacred books are produced 
by the “musings” and “fervid imaginations” 
of ancient Jewish dreamers. 

(e) Paul's Blunder. Speaking of the great 
apostle to the Gentiles, Mr. Eckman says: “He 
evidently carried over to his times the traditions 
of the Hebrew people. His writings are colored 
by Jewish symbolism. He had the common idea 
of the Antichrist. It crept out in the first 
productions of his pen. He shared the belief 
of Christ’s followers that their Lord would soon 
return, probably within their lifetime. In his 
First Epistle to the Thessalonians he went so 
far as to describe the manner in which Christ 
would return. He was so emphatic respecting 
the second advent that he led some superficial 
Thessalonian Christians to fancy that they need 
not keep up the regular business of life, since 
Christ would quickly return. To check this 
mischief, Paul wrote a second epistle in which 
he warned them against a premature expecta¬ 
tion of Christ’s return. Mr. Eckman then points 
out the portrait that Paul drew of “the man 
of sin,” and adds: “He calls up this picture to 
turn the Thessalonians away from the foolish 


182 Postmillennialism and The Higher Critics 

idea that Jesus would come back any minute. 
He never mentions the subject again” (pp. 
190, 191). 

So it seems that Paul knew very little more 
about the future than the rest of us. He wrote 
down one set of notions in one epistle and 
later corrected his mistakes in another. Poor 
inspiration, this. Had he written under divine 
direction, as our fathers thought, he could have 
been spared the mortification of correcting his 
own mistake, but it seems that the skeptics are 
right, and our so-called inspired books are but 
Jewish fables, or moral disquisitions. Poor, 
blundering Paul! 

(f) John also, it seems, made mistakes. 
Speaking of the writings of the beloved dis¬ 
ciple, Mr. Eckman says: “His mental develop¬ 
ment respecting this subject (the anti-Christ) 
seems to have been much like that of the 
Apostle Paul. Before he wrote his epistles, 
and long before this Gospel was written, he 
produced the Book of Revelation. Remember¬ 
ing what an apocalypse is, we shall vex our 
souls over the vain effort to fit every symbol 
of fchis wonderful book to some event which 
has occurred or which is yet to occur. Like 
the other apostles, John first looked for the 
destruction of Jerusalem, the end of the age, 
and the return of Christ all to come very soon, 
probably within his lifetime. It was a troubled 
age; persecution was rife. He writes to buoy 


“Tho Retisrn of the R&€k^mer” 196 

up disheartened Christians. He has the anti- 
Christ literature before him. He has read 
Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, and the others. He 
freely borrows from the imagery he uses, 
changing where he likes” (pp. 192, 193). 

If the above statements be correct, John’s 
authority as an inspired writer, one bearing a 
message from God, suffers collapse. No dif¬ 
ference how much credit may be given to 
John’s moralizing, his book deserves no place 
in the sacred canon. John either is inspired, 
or he is not. Shall we not continue to recog¬ 
nize him as a mouthpiece of the Almighty, 
Eckman, Rail, Case, and other critical postmil- 
lennialists to the contrary notwithstanding? 
The date commonly assigned to the Apocalypse 
is near the close of the first century, about 
A. D. 96. I can see no sound reason for 
assigning it an earlier date. It seems, there¬ 
fore, to me that Mr. Eckman is on dangerous 
ground in his effort to show up the mistakes 
of John, Paul, and other premillennialists of 
the first century. Had we not better leave the 
discussion of “The Mistakes of Moses” and 
other Bible writers to men of the Bob Ingersoll 
stripe ? 

The Anti-Christ. 

Mr. Eckman is lost in the mazes of a dense 
fog-mist in his peregrinations in search of the 
Antichrist. He points out what ho esteems 


184 PGstmiHennialism and The Higher Critics 

the mistakes of others concerning this char¬ 
acter, and then wonders if many men have 
not fitted into the place and been for a limited 
time the Antichrist of their age. After pointing 
out as probable specimens such characters as 
Antiochus Epiphanes, who, says Eckman, “did 
exalt himself above God and was a remorse¬ 
less persecutor of the people of Israel,” he 
proceeds to list Nero, Domitian, Mohammed, 
Bonaparte, and the recent German Kaiser as 
the probable anti-Christs of history. All of this, 
it seems to me, is simple nonsense. Antiochus 
Epiphanes does not belong in the Antichrist 
chain. He is rather the forerunner of the 
“False Prophet.” 

A careful study of Daniel, seventh and 
eighth chapters, will show two “little horns. 
The one in the seventh chapter comes in the 
regular beastly chain revealed to Daniel; he 
rises immediately upon the fall of the old 
Roman Empire and its breaking up into ten 
kingdoms. From this he continues till the 
coming of the “Ancient of Days,” and the 
passing of the kingdom from the beast to the 
saints. This is the Antichrist, and is fulfilled 
perfectly in the Pope of Rome and cannot 
possibly be fulfilled in any other. He is the 
Antichrist, the man of sin, the son of perdi¬ 
tion, the beast. He will be cast Into the lake 
of fire at the return of our Lord. 


135 


* Return of the Redeemer” 

In the eighth chapter may be traced the 
other little horn. Daniel saw him in a different 
vision. He had no connecton with the Roman 
Empire, but arose in the empire of Alexander, 
who was the leopard, the third beast of Daniel 
seven. Antiochus comes up in this connection 
and is the precursor of Mohammed, the false 
prophet. These little horns were both kings 
and both heads of a wicked, false religion; 
the one extended through a large part of 
Europe, the other through sections of Europe 
and over large regions of Asia and Africa. The 
cruelty, injustice, and unspeakable wickedness 
of Antiochus Epiphanes well illustrates the licen¬ 
tious and bloody course of the Mohammedan 
oppressors. 

It is a fact well known to any student of 
history that Palestine, the land of the sons of 
Jacob, has been trodden under foot successively 
by pagan, papal, and Islamic hordes. Waste 
no time, reader, in looking for the coming of 
the Antichrist. The world has long suffered 
under the bestial course of the Antichrist of 
all Antichrists, the Pope. I would like to say 

more in this book concerning this enemy of 
God and His truth, but I purpose writing in the 
near future a book to bear the title, “The 
Antichrist, and Some Mistakes Concerning 

Him.” If the reader is interested in any fur¬ 
ther discussion of this subject, the book will 


I §8 P o sfeiUcsinsslism and Tfe© Higasr Critics 

likely be accessible within a few months. 

We are sorry our friend Eckman has gone 
over to the critics, and that he is so badly 
“balled up” concerning the anti-Christ. 

L. L. P. 


CHAPTER VIII. 

Raymond’s Systematic Theology, 

We have been interested in consulting this 
writer on eschatology. Like others whom we 
have reviewed, he has a hard time with his 
theme, especially with Revelaton 20. He is 
quite sure that this chapter is “obscure, diffi¬ 
cult, impossible of literal interpretation.” To 
him, it says some strange things—tilings that 
cannot be accepted at their face value. Some¬ 
how, and this is puzzling to him, this passage 
must be disposed of as a writing inconsistent 
with what he esteems plainer and more easily 
understood Scriptures. 

This present reviewer sees nothing obscure, 
or inconsistent with other scriptures, in this 
beautiful passage. It seems clear, pointed 
and plain. We take it at its face value, and 
find in it the following plainly-revealed facts; 

1. In chapter 19, we have, 

(a) The announcement of the readiness of 
the bride, the marriage of the Lamb, the rapture 
of the saints, and the festivities of the wedding 
supper. (6-S). 

(b) Jesus rides forth upon His white horse, 
followed by the armies of the skies. He wears 
upon His vestment the insignia of royalty— 
Kings cf Kings, and Lord of Lords 

(c) With the word of His mouth He smites 
men as though with a sword. His enemies fall 
dead at His feet. 


1S8 FostmiilennsaHsm and The Higher Critic* 

(d) An angel standing in the sun announces 
the beginning of the great tribulation. He bids 
the ravenous birds and the beasts of prey fatten 
themselves upon the flesh of kings, and of cap¬ 
tains, and of great and mighty men. 

(e) The battle rages, the forces of heaven, of 
the King eternal, are triumphant. The Beast 
and the False Prophet, are both captured and 
cast alive into the lake of fire. These, leaders 
of hell’s minions, that have so long corrupted 
and cursed the earth, here meet absolute over¬ 
throw. 

2. From this point we pass into the twenti¬ 
eth chapter, where the story is continued. Ob¬ 
serve then, the following: 

(f) Satan is seized by a great angel and per¬ 
sonally cast into the bottomless pit. This 
fulfills Matt. 12:29, where the strong man is 
bound by a stronger, that his house may be 
spoiled. Being thus incarcerated he has no 
further access to the nations and is therefore 
unable to deceive them till the thousand years 
are finished, after which being loosed he heads 
the final great apostacy. 

(g) The martyrs of the great tribulation, 
those who had been slain at the behest of the 
world-dominating Beast, because they would 
not worship his image (Rev. 13), are raised 
from the dead and crowned for rulership dur¬ 
ing the millennium. They participate with the 
King of kings, in rulership over the nations. 


Raymond’s Systematic Theology 189 

“Judgment was given to them.” This judg¬ 
ment continues for a simple millennium. What 
judgment is this? It is the judgment of the liv¬ 
ing nations. How long will it last? Ten cen¬ 
turies, one thousand years. This is a plain, liter¬ 
al fulfillment of Paul’s word. “Know ye not 
that the saints shall judge the world? ” (1 Cor. 
6:2) It also fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah, 
(32:1.) “princes shall rule in judgment.” It 
is the carrying out of the Master’s promise 
that His disciples should sit on twelve thrones 
judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19: 
23), and that His faithful servants should be 
placed in authority over cities according to 
their capacity. (Luke 19.) 

(h) This is called the first resurrection. It 
is the finishing or culmination of the resurrec¬ 
tion of the saints, which began with the Rap¬ 
ture at the return of our Lord. (See Isaiah 
26: 19-21; Luke 21: 34-36.) This resurrection 
precedes that of “the rest of the dead”by one 
thousand years. It is a very reasonable propo¬ 
sition. Those saints who have proven true in 
the years of their pilgrimage, have thus pre¬ 
pared themselves to render faithful service in 
the administration of the divine government 
over the nations. The millennium is a period 
during which Christ and His faithful ones share 
earthly administration. 

(i) After the judgment of the living nations, 
which occupies one thousand years, ’and is 


190 Postmiliennialssm and The Higher Critse* 

commonly called the millennium, Satan is 
loosed that he may go forth among men who 
have been the subjects of the millennial judg¬ 
ment, and tempt them. This is the final test. 
Those who are weak enough and foolish enough 
to join him in this last great rebellion are 
consumed by the fires that fall from heaven. 
A great host of them thus perish. In the con¬ 
flagration of that day the very seed of sin is 
consumed. The tires that fall purge the earth 
till no element of evil remains. The faithful 
ones, those who stand firm in this hour of test, 
like Noah and his family, pass over into the 
renewed earth, forming a nucleus for a con¬ 
tinued population of the new and Edenized 
earth, an earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. 

(j) The dead, small and great, are then 
judged. And this includes all who are not 
counted worthy to have a part in the first 
resurrection; and all, good and bad, who shall 
have died during the millennium. These stand 
before the great white throne and are separated 
by the Judge (Acts 17:31; 2 Cor. 5:10) as 
a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats, 
and are driven forth into outer darkness; while 
the righteous hear the welcome plaudit, “Come, 

ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom 
prepared for you.” (Matt. 25:31-46.) 

How the wicked will wail in that day! How 
the arches of heaven will ring as the saints 
receive their crowns. 


191 


Raymond’s Systematic Rheology 


This disposes of the dead of all the ares. 
After this there shall be no more death. (Rev. 
2 1 :*!.) It does not, however, make an end of 
the earth or of human population. The taber¬ 
nacle of Gcd, the new Jerusalem descending 
out of heaven, fills the earth with the golden 
glories of this celestial city. Nations walk in 
the light of it. The race again having access 
to the Tree of Life, living on an Edcnized earth, 
freed from sin and the consequences thereof, 
goes on reproducing a holy progeny and thus 
populating the new earth. Thus our Lord Jesus 
Christ, King of Glory, shall have accomplished 
His mission in destroying the works of the 
devil. (1 John 3:8.) The nations of the saved 
walk in the light of the city and the kings of 
the earth bring their glory and honor into it. 


Now, with this outline, which is clearly set 
forth in the passage under review, and which 
is literally true, we proceed to examine Mr. 
Raymond’s muddled views and shall assist, if 
possible, in clearing up his postmillennial per- 
plexites. He says m'any things, of which the 
following seems to bo the substance: 

(1) The premiHennral theory (as he thinks) 
is found only in the twentieth chapter of Reve¬ 
lation (p. 476). While this passage very 
dearly and fully, as we have shown, sets forth 
the thousand-year period as the time of judging 
the living nations in an administrative judg¬ 
ment, it is by no means the only scripture 


192 Postmiilezmialism and The Higher Critics 

upon which may be founded the premillennial 
doctrine. On the other hand, without giving- 
time boundaries, Isaiah (65:17-25) gives a 
far more elaborate picture of this glorious 
period. I trust my readers will give this beau¬ 
tiful millennial passage a careful and thoughtful 
consideration. It will well repay a painstaking 
perusal. It shows that the earth is to be re¬ 
newed; that in the time of its remaking there 
will be some sin—“the sinner being an hundred 
years old shall be accursed.” It also shows 
that death shall for a season continue. “The 
child shall die an hundred years old.” 

Furthermore, it continues in the building of 
houses, the planting of vineyards and the enjoy¬ 
ment of the same through multiplying years, life 
being compared to the age of a tree. It also 
shows the birth of children, saying that the 
inhabitants shall be blessed “and then offspring 
with them.” That this describes the millen¬ 
nium is clear from the fact that there is no 
such longevity this side the millennium, and 
no death in the renewed earth beyond it. 

(2 )Mr. Raymond has it that Christ will at 
His coming, “destroy all the wicked from off 
the face of the earth” (p. 477). This is not 
borne out by the record. Instead, the gospel 
of God’s grace will bring them by millions to 
the knowledge of salvation. The Jews are a 
case in point. They live in rebellion against 
the Christ until His return as Lord. Jesus 


193 


Raymond’s Systematic Theology 

Himself said to them, ‘'Behold, your house is 
left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, 
Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall 
say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name 
of the Lord.” (Matt. 23:38,39.) They accept 
Him at His return, as Paul clearly teaches 
(Rom. ll: 12, 15, 25, 26 ; see also Zechariah 
8: 13-22, Isaiah 27: 6.) James informs us 
that when the Lord Jesus returns and rebuilds 
the tabernacle of David, “which is fallen down, 
the residue of men may seek after the Lord.” 
(Acts 15 : 13-17.) 

That the saving* grace of God will operate 
in the millennium is shown by the writer of 
the Epistle to the Hebrews (6: 4-6). He tells 
us of those who have received the knowledge 
of sins forgiven and have “tasted the powers 
of the world to come.” The word rendered 
“world” here is age; the clear meaning is that 
those who are truly and joyously saved now 
receive therein but a foretaste of the wonderful 
and glorious power that shall ibe dominating 
and sweeping the world into God’s favor in 
the coming wonderful period of millennial 
glory. Men shall then receive in fulness the 
gracious blessing which we now obtain in fore¬ 
taste. • ^ 1 

Mr. Raymond says: “According to it (the 
premillennial theory) the gospel ceases to be 
the instrument of the world’s salvation (p. 
477). This is another short-sighted and untrue 


124 PostmiJennlalism and Tbs Higher Critics 


criticism. All that the gospel can do now It 
can do then, and very much more. Why should 
not China, India, Africa and other benighted 
nations learn of Jesus as Savior and Lord in 
that wonderful golden day? What else can be 
the prophet’s meaning in those beautiful words 
in which he informs ns that ‘‘many peoples 
shall say, Come ye, and let us go up to the 
mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God 
of Jacob, and he will teach us his ways, and 
we will walk in his paths, for out of Zion 
shall we go forth the law and the word of the 
Lord from Jerusalem.” (Isa. 2:3.) Again this 
prophet says, “When thy judgments are in the 
earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn 
righteousness” (26:9). “And it shall be said 
in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited 
for Him, and He will save us. This is Jehovah; 
we have waited for Him; we will be glad and 
rejoice in His salvaton” (25:9). Thus we 
find that instead of destroying all the wicked 
of the earth, while there shall be very great 
and destructive judgments upon it, yet a residue 
of vast numbers, of unnumbered millions, shall 
seek the Lord and come to the knowledge of 
His salvation. 

(4) As another objection, Mr. Raymond 
asserts: “There are two resurrections, two 
judgment days, and three advents of Christ.” 
This is partly true, viz., there are indeed two 
resurrections, and this is not only plainly as- 


Raymond’s Systematic Theology 195 

serted by John in the Book of Revelation, 
but it is very clearly implied, if not strongly 
taught, in many other passages of Holy Writ. 
Why should we not stand squarely for those 
things taught by the beloved John? I am 
willing to plead guilty anywhere to the charge 
of believing his testimony. 

As to the matter of two judgments, this is 
not exact. There are two or more stages of 
the one judgment. We are clearly informed 
that Jesus shall judge the “quick and the dead.” 
As we have already seen, the judgment of the 
quick, or living, extends over a period of one 
thousand years. This is followed by the judg¬ 
ment of the dead. Of course, the premilleri- 
nialists teach this because their Lord and His 
disciples taught it. We do not claim to be wise 
above that which is written. With us, “Thus 
saith the Lord,” is an end of controversy. 

As to the assertion that we believe in three 
advents, I reply that this is hardly accurate. 
Of course, we believe in the first advent, when 
Jesus was born of the Virgin mother. In this 
advent there were staged two manifestations. 
At His birth angels proclaimed the same to 
shepherds who found Him in the manger. 
Again at His baptism the heavens were opened, 
the voice from the skies proclaimed Him the 
Messiah, and the Heavenly Dove came down 

and rested upon Him. This was not two ad- 


196 Postmilicnalalism and The Higher Critics 

vents, but a double staging of the one redemp¬ 
tion coming. 

At the second advent there will likewise 
be two manifestations. First, He will descend 
and call up to meet Him in the a:r His risen 
and translated saints. His faithful living will 
thus escape the fearful tribulation that is com¬ 
ing on the earth. (Luke 21:34-36; Rev. 3: 
10). While the tribulation is threshing out the 
earth, the saints are with their Lord in the 
marriage supper of the Lamb. At the close 
of the great tribulation, the wedding supper 
being over, the Rapture terminates, and Jesus 
and His crowned saints come to cast out Satan 
and begin the millennial reign. These are not 
two comings, but two stages of the second 
coming. 

(5) Again, the writer we have under review 
declares: ‘'Since nothing is said of the bodies 
of the martyrs . . . then the first resurrec¬ 

tion may be a return to earth of the martyr 
spirit” (p. 479). 

In reply, observe the following: (a) John 
saw certain “souls” and they were those who 
had been beheaded for their testimony for Jesus. 
It is of these, not of some others, that the 
prophet says: “And they lived, and judgment 
—the power and authority to judge—was given 
unto them.” John says nothing of others 
obtaining their spirit, but asserts definitely tkat 
“they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand 


Raymond's Systematic Theology 197 

years.” Who lived? Those who had died; the 
very same identical martyrs who had suffered 
for Jesus. What a travesty upon sane Bible 
teaching to go meandering through the earth 
trying to find some one else to take the place 
of these martyrs of the tribulation days. John 
would not accept such juggling with his testi¬ 
mony, such a perversion of his teaching. 
Rather, pointing his finger in the direction of 
the reigning ones, he says, “I saw their disem¬ 
bodied souls, I saw that their heads had been 
cut off for their faith; but 1 also saw them 
come forth from among the dead, and now, 
behold, they reign with their risen Lord. Like 
Him, they are alive forevermore. Death hath 
no more dominion over them. This is the first 
resurrection.” John, like Daniel, is greatly 
beloved in heaven. His testimony may be per¬ 
verted (by postmillennial theologians, but it 
will stand unshaken in that day when the 
foundations of error shall give way. 

(6) “Again, as nothing is said of Christ's 
coming in personal presence, only that the 
martyrs lived and reigned with Christ a thou¬ 
sand years, it is an assumption to say that 
Christ is to be personally present on the earth 
during those years” (p. 479). 

This is an amazing statement! Did its 
author tear the tv/entieth chapter of Revelation 
from his Bible, or did he fail to read the nine¬ 
teenth chapter? Any man competent to write 


198 Po€tmiilennia!sm and The Higher Critics 

a “Systematic Theology,” or a book against 
premillennialism certainly knows that John did 
not divide the Book of Revelation into chapters 
and verses. He also knows that this scene 
began in the nineteenth chapter, where the 
record of the marriage of the Lamb is given, 
and where we see Jesus, the conquering King, 
ride forth upon His white horse. He descends 
to the earth, out of which He casts the trinity 
of hell’s leaders—the Beast, the False Prophet 
and the Dragon, who is the devil himself. His 
triumphant progress is evidenced in the raising 
from the dead of these holy martyrs. They 
who had fallen victims to the cruel persecutions 
of the infernal trinity are now crowned kings 
and made judges over the earth upon which 
they had suffered for their faithfulness. 

Bishop Merrill, in his book on The Second 
Coming, made some statements similar to this. 
Let our answer suffice for them both. Jesus 
came from heaven to earth, whence He cast 
out these wicked forces of perdition and 
crowned their former victims kings to reign 
with Him over the lands wherein they have 
heretofore suffered. 

That the devil was Literally cast out of the 
earth is shown by the Greek word used (ekra- 
iecen). It is a word that means a literal “laying 
hold of,’’ as an officer might seize a criminal. 
This is the w r ord that was used when the mob 
in the garden seized Jesus to drag Him up 


Raymond's Systematic Theology 199 

before the high priest and Pilate. It can have 
no other meaning than to seize the offender 
that he may be cast out or overboard. It is 
as though a villain were found robbing a house 
and were picked up bodily by the landlord and 
pitched out into the street. Already our Lord 
had begun his work of purging the earth from 
Satan's pestiferous presence and his criminal 
activities. Henceforth our Master’s true and 
tried ones shall be allowed the joy and honor 
of participating with Him in His glorious reign 
and kingly honors. 

(7) The writer of “Systematic Theology” 
is frank enough to confess himself puzzled. 
We are glad he is so honest. Postmillennialism 
is a puzzling piece of papal puerility. His 
theory runs him aground. Hear this: “We 
confess that to us the chapter (Rev. 20) con¬ 
tains what we cannot satisfactorily explain.” 
If we might add the one word “away” to his 
enforced confession, the reader would have the 
facts. It is indeed a chapter that cannot be 
easily “explained away.” Its facts abide like 
the Rock of Gibraltar. Many have very dili¬ 
gently assayed the fruitless task of breaking the 
premillennial force of St. John’s testimony. 
But the beautiful truth abides. And the coming 
King of Glory shall, with His risen martyrs, 
yet reign in glorious power upon the earth, 
which shall ibe filled with His knowledge and 
glory as the waters cover the sea. 


200 Posimilleimialism and ihs Higher Critics 


*1 have given many illustrations of the use 
of this word ekratesen in my book, “The End 
of the World: Is It Near?” May be had of 
the publishers of this book. Price, cloth, 75c; 
paper, 40c. 

(8) From the author under review we quote: 
“Assuming that the Old Testament prophecies 
and the New Testament aims refer to man’s 
probationary life, and are to be realized pre¬ 
vious to the second advent of Christ, to the 
resurrection and other eschatological events, 
we next inquire what conditions will satisfy 
the expectations? ” We are glad he is forced 
to acknowledge that he “assumes” certain of 
his positions; and now he sets about trying to 
find scriptural support for his assumptions. 

Indeed, postmillennialism is built upon as¬ 
sumption rather than upon the Word of God. 
It is utterly without foundation. These theorists 
do not come to the Word of God for their 
information. Of course, they can quote scrip¬ 
ture; so can infidels; so can advocates of a 
sinning religion. These teachers assume a 
theory and then seek to establish it. The Bible 
should not be so used. 

Let us suppose an honest pagan were handed 
his first copy of the Bible and asked to read 
and expound, according to the simple meaning 
of the words, the nineteenth and twentieth 
chapters of Revelation. He “assumes” noth- 



Raymond’s Systematic Theology 201 

ing; he has no preconceived opinions; nothing 
to uphold, to defend, or to prove. He simply 
reads those two chapters thoughtfully in order 
to get their meaning. Think you, reader, that 
he would come forth from that reading a con¬ 
firmed postmiliennialist? Would he affirm 
that the gospel had so spread that Satan could 
get no following, and that this breaking of his 
influence was his binding and incarceration? 
Would he say that the martyrs were not raised, 
but that others had accepted their spirit? 
Would he dispute a two-fold resurrection, with 
an intervening thousand years? To ask such 
questions is to answer them. He would cer¬ 
tainly dome forth a confirmed premillennialist, 
else he would brand your Bible a book of 
fables and pitch it into the garbage can. Let 
us quit playing into the hands of infidelity, 
accept the Word of God for what it says, and 
proclaim to the world the near coming of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Son of man; 
rightful Ruler and King of this world. 

(9) Professor Raymond does not believe in 
the perfection of God’s reign upon the the 
earth. He avers that “a literal interpretation 
of our Lord’s prayer would change earth to 
heaven,” and he cannot accept this. He con¬ 
siders the promise of harmony in the animal 
world, the lying down together of the lion and 

the lamb, as altogether too literalistic; perhaps 
I should say materialistic. He thinks this a 


202 PostmMeEirialism and The Higher Critics 

mere flight of prophetic fancy, and says: ‘To 
our thought, the prophecies above rehearsed 
(Isaiah 11: 1-9), and the nature and evident 
intent of the gospel, warrant the expectation 
that the time will come when a Christian 
church and a seminary of learning will be within 
convenient distance of every family on the 
whole face of the earth” (p. 481). 

He sets a good standard for his church and 
his seminary. We certainly do not object to a 
live church and a safe school being brought 
within the reach of every family. The present 
writer has had something to do with furthering 
this type of work. But I happen to know that 
good churches and splendid schools cannot save 
all men. Have seen them pretty thoroughly 
tested. Men can die in their sins and sink down 
into hell under the shadow of the best of 
churches and the highest type of schools. But 
the prophet foretells a day when “earth shall 
be full of the knowledge of the glory of the 
Lord as the waters cover the sea”; yea, when 
“none shall say to another, Know ye the Lord? 
For all shall know me from the least of them 
to the greatest of them.” (Jer. 31: 34.) The 
postmillennialists have labored in vain to bring 
in that day. They have failed; tout our return¬ 
ing King will not fail; He shall rule the day. 

Till He come, earth will be full of abounding 
wickedness. (Matt. 24: 12.) Anti-Christ and 
the False Prophet shall continue to delude their 


Raymonds Systematic Theology 203 

victims and destroy the people until the bright¬ 
ness of our Lord’s outshining presence (Greek, 
the epiphany of his parousia). (2 Thess. 2:8.) 
After His return, the earth, filled with His 
knowledge and glory, every foe cast out, even 
the animal world, shall return to days of uni¬ 
versal peace, and the lion and the lamb shall 
lie down together. Great, coming day! 

You do not believe this? I am sorry. It is 
the word of God. 


(10) The writer under review asks this ques¬ 
tion: “Will all the inhabitants of the earth be 
true Christians in the time of the millennium? ” 
He then answers as follows: “We think not. 
For to suppose they will be is to suppose that 
probation has ceased, and that men on earth 
have attained to their heavenly state” (p. 490). 

I cannot here enter into a full discussion of 
this subject. Suffice it to say the millennium 
is not the perfect reign of Christ. It is a transi¬ 
tion state, a bridge extending from the present 
“evil age” to the renewed earth. The new 
earth is a happy, Edenic world from which 
all sin and sorrow will be forever banished. 
(Rev. 2 1). In that world, earth made new, 
there will never be known either sin or its 
blighting and hurtful effects, and death shall 
be unknown. The prayer of saints adown the 
ages will then find its fulfillment, and God’s 
will shall be done unon earth as it is in heaven. 


204 Pcsimfllenniciism and The Higher Critics 

(I) For further treatment, see “The Millen¬ 
nium,” by L. L. Pickett. 

This will not be heaven, it will simply be 
earth restored to its pristine purity, to its 
primal holiness, as when it rolled forth from 
the hand divine in that morning of creation, 
when God, looking upon it, pronounced it good 
and “the morning stars sang for joy.” Bless 
God! Our eyes shall some day look upon a 
world made new, where not even a footprint 
of Satan can be found.* 

(II) Mr. Raymond says: “We have as¬ 
sumed that the present is the last time, the 
last dispensation of grace and probation pro¬ 
vided for men. That Christ’s coming is at the 
end of the world. That the resurrection of 
the dead, both of the just and the unjust, vill 
be at the coming of Christ. The resurrection 
of the unjust in immediate succession after that 
of the just” (p. 491). 

Fatal* assumption! If the writer of a “Sys¬ 
tematic Theology” did not “assume” so much 
he would not so frequently fall into error; 
would not so often miss the mark. That is the 
trouble with our postmillennial teachers. Their 
theories are built upon human assumptions, the 
shifting sands of error, rather than upon the 


*“The Renewed Earth; or, The Coming and 
Reign of Jesus Christ,” by L. L. Pickett. 



t 


Raymond’s Systematic Theology 205 

granite rock of revealed truth, the sure Word 
of God. In the assumptions herein offered us 
we note the following distinct errors: 

(a) ‘This is the last dispensation of grace.” 
But Jesus did not say this. Speaking of the 
blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, he said this sin 
shall not be forgiven, “neither in this world 
(age or dispensation), nor in that which is to 
come.” (Matt. 12: 32.) Thus our Lord clearly 
implies that grace will continue in the age to 
come, bringing salvation to men, with pardon 
of all sins, except the blasphemy against the 
Holy Ghost. This hath never forgiveness- 
Such words could not have been used by Jesus 
if no sins would ever be forgiven in the world 
—the age—to come. 

The Jews only accept Jesus at His second 
advent (Zech. 12: 10; 13: 1,2,8,9). They 
will then be gloriously saved. (2 Cor. 3: 14-16; 
Ezek. 36: 24-3 3; 37: 20-25.) When the Jews 
are converted they will become the greatest 
evangelizing agency ever known in human 
history. Having been scattered through all the 
earth, they know the languages and customs 
of all* peoples. Thus they can with great power 
preach the gospel of redeeming love. They are 
a vital and virile people. Their influence will 
be mightily felt. 

(b) Mr. Raymond “assumes” that Christ is 
coming “at the end of the world.” There is 
no objection to this, if by the word “world” 


20G Postmillennialism I he Higher Critics 


he means what the scriptural writers mean; 
that is, the age or dispensation. The Greek 
word «ion, which is the one always used for 
“world” when the ‘‘end of the world” is spoken 
of in the New Testament, means an age or 
dispensation, as the Mosaic age, the Christian 
dispensation, the millennial era. Thus one age 
or world follows another in immediate succes¬ 
sion. Jesus comes again at the end of this age 
and inaugurates the millennial age. 

(c) He “assumes that the resurrection of 
the unjust is immediately after that of the 
just.” Why should a Bible teacher “assume” 
anything that positively contradicts the word 
of St. John or any other biblical writer? But 
that is the trouble with postmiliennialism. The 
whole proposition is an assumption, without 
warrant of Scripture, and in plain contradiction 
of God’s Word. Not only does John plainly 
state that there are two resurrections, with an 
intervening thousand years, but Paul likewise, 
in portraying the majestic advent of Jesus, 
affirms that “the dead in Christ shall rise first: 
then (that is, the next thing in order), we 
which are alive and remain shall be caught up 
together with them in the clouds, to meet the 
Lord in the air.” (1 Thess. 4:16, 17.) Here 
Paul pictures the coming of the Lord, the rising 
of the holy dead from their graves, and then 
tells us what will be the next item on the 
docket. Will it be the raising of the rest of 


Raymond’s Systematic Theology 207 

the dead? Will they ascend'immediately after 
the holy dead shall have come forth from their 
graves? Not according to Paul. He says: 
“Then, that is next, the saints of God who then 
remain shall be caught up together with them.” 

Thus Paul, the premillennialist, sets before 
us two distinct events and the order in which 
they occur, viz., the resurrection of a limited 
class, and this to be followed immediately by 
the translation of another limited class. One 
had as well contend that all the living of earth, 
good and bad, shall then be translated, as to 
contend that all the dead shall then be raised. 
Select resurrection from among the dead, and 
a translation, a catching up without dying, of 
a select class from among the living. In this 
there is perfect agreement between the two 
premillennialists, John and Paul, and they 
agree in rejecting the “assumption” of our 
friend Raymond and his postmillennial ad¬ 
herents. 

We may be excused for preferring the teach¬ 
ings of Paul and John to the “assumptions” 
of more recent writers. 

(11) “To our thought, the idea of a millen¬ 
nium is the idea of complete success as to the 
church, as now constituted, and as to the*: 

♦ 

enterprises of the church now in operation” 
(p. 493). 

These words of Mr. Raymond are thoroughly 
postmillennal. This class of teachers is very 


20S PostmiJemiialism and 1 he Higher Critics 

full of assertion as to the triumph of the church 
through present agencies. This is a papal 
notion. The Pope thinks he can run the world 
without the return of Jesus. The Bible nowhere 
speaks of the church winning the world. The 
church is set before us as a bride, not as a 
warrior. She does not lead, but is led. She 
does not conquer, but follows her conquering 
Lord. She does not crown, but is crowned. 
She does not take the world for God, but God 
takes the world for her. “Fear not, little flock, 
it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the 
kingdom.” (Luke 12:32.) It is certain the 
church, which is the body and bride of Christ 
(Eph. 5:22-26), shall participate with King 
Jesus in all His triumphs. But they are His 
victories, not her’s. He is now gathering His 
bride, which is an ecclesia, a called-out and 
separated body of holy ones. When the bride 
is completed, and the marriage supper of the 
Lamb shall be celebrated, the Lamb of God 
shall assume a new role and go forth before 
an astonished universe as “the Lon of the tribe 
of Judah.” 

Our brother expects the church “as now 
constituted” to bring on a millennium and 
achieve “a complete success.” Quite a task 

this for the church. He expects her to save 
the world, to gospelize the nations, defeat the 
foes of the Almighty, drive back the hordes 


209 


Raymond’^ Systematic Theology 

of the wicked, and plant the banner of com¬ 
plete victory on the fallen strongholds of evil 
around the world. Before the advance of the 
church the legions of hell must fly in alarm and 
discomfiture, the shades of darkness must give 
way before the light of her glory, and even 
Satan himself must throw up his hands in weak¬ 
ness and defeat, acknowledging the triumph of 
his victorious enemy. 

Beautiful picture, but utterly fallacious. 
There is not a single passage in God’s Word 
that teaches the overthrow of all sin by 
churchly agencies. It is now more than eigh¬ 
teen centuries since the Pentecost—yea, more 
than nineteen hundred years have rolled their 
ample round since the birth of our Lord—and 
there is not, and never has been, a converted 
town or city on the face of the earth. Men 
have come and gone, have lived and died; 
nations have risen, flourished, and faded from 
history; but the Church has never yet com¬ 
pletely saved a single community of consider¬ 
able size. Whole communities—yea, entire 
states and nations—have succumbed to pagan¬ 
ism, popery and Mohammedanism, but the 
Church has never yet v/on even a village. 
Why? Because sin is native to the human 
heart. Men readily accept the false religions 
of the world, but they resist the doctrines of 
lowliness and self-denial taught by the Church 
of the living God. Her appeal is to self- 


210 Fostmillennialsm and The Higher Critics 

renunciation, to sacrifice, and self-abnegation. 
The Church can win some converts, but they 
are always, have ever been, and ever shall be, 
a few from among the many. And this shall 
continue until the arch-enemy and his chief 
lieutenants are cast out of the earth at the 
coming of the King. 

Very little is known of a pure, Bible-loving 
type of Christianity in any of those lands where 
Jesus and His apostles first preached the gospel. 
How blind must be those optimistic postmil- 
lennial philosophers who expect the Church, 
“as now constituted,” to storm the citadels of 
sin and lay a redeemed world at the feet of 
its Lord, when to this good hour she has not 
even so much as one small village to her 
credit. His assumptions are a rope of sand. 

How will our postmillennial friends who are 
going to have the Church take the world for 
God explain the following news item under 
date of June 4, 192 1: 

“Thirty-five thousand churches in the United 
States are without pastors and only 1,450 
ministers will be graduated this year from 
seminaries to fill these places, declared Rev. 
Willard D. Brown at the annual synod of the 
Reformed Church of America. Mr. Brown 
said that 5,000 preachers were needed each 
year to fill pastoral vacancies.” 

(12) We quote from “Systematic Theolo¬ 
gy” once more, as follows: “It has been 


211 


Raymond’s Systematic Theology 

inferred that at the end of the millennium 
there shall be a great apostasy; that Satan, 
being loosed from his thousand years’ impris¬ 
onment, shall go forth among men, causing 
great rebellion, etc. . . all of which we 
believe is untrue” (p. 494). And this man 
is a preacher; he is a theological teacher! 
But he does not hesitate to call a plain reve¬ 
lation of God’s Word a mere inference, and 
to pronounce it “untrue.” If this be false, 
then the writer of the Apocalypse is an un¬ 
trustworthy witness, one who bears false testi¬ 
mony. Shades of Bolingbroke, Voltaire, Rous¬ 
seau and Hume; of Tom Paine and of Bob 
Ingersoll! Are preachers and theological 
teachers to join the infidels and dispute the 
plain statements of inspiration? 

No wonder such writers oppose premillen- 
nialism. They simply do not believe the Bible. 
Herein they have a splendid foundation for 
following the papal vagaries of postmillennial- 
ism. If we cannot believe John and Paul in 
their premillennial writings, upon what shall 
we build our faith? We raise the query of the 
olden saint, “If the foundations be destroyed, 
what can the righteous do?” These postmil- 
lennial critics are blasting at the foundations 
of our faith. Let us fight them to a finish. 
The God of our Bible will stand by us in the 
conflict. L. L. P. 


CHAPTER IX. 

Benjamin Field’s “Handbook of Theology.” 

Mr. Field stands strongly for postmillennial- 
ism and some of his own words, as we will 
show, nullify his main contention. With some 
of his positions we can heartily agree, as cer¬ 
tain extracts we shall give will make clear. 
On the other hand, his main position, in which 
he attempts to prove a converted world—yea, 
the fulfillment of all the prophesies setting 
forth our Lord’s coming dominion over the 
earth before His personal return, contradicts 
the plain declaration of many passages in the 
inspired Word. 

Mr. Field makes an admission that under¬ 
mines his entire postmillennial fabric. He says: 
“Many passages relative to the second advent 
intimate that it will take place at a time of 
abounding depravity, when religion is at a low 
ebb, and when worldliness, infidelity and hos¬ 
tility to God are rampant” (p. 257). H# 
gives us some scriptures to justify this admis¬ 
sion, the like of which abound in the New 
Testament, such as Luke 18:8, Matt. 24:7, 
compared with Gen. 6:11, Luke 17:26-30. 
These passages might be increased materially. 
We may add to them some, such as 2 Tim. 
T: 1-6, where Paul gives a description of what 
he calls “perilous times,” which he tells us 


Eenj. Field’s “Handbook of Theology.” 213 


describe the “last days.” Also in Galations 
1: 4 the great apostle says that “Jesus gave 
himself for our sins, that he might deliver us 
from this present evil world” (Greek “aion,” 
which means age or dispensation). All these 
sc; iptures, with many others that might be 
auoted, show that our Lord returns to earth 
in a time of abounding wickedness. These 
passages give no uncertain note, and they 
sound the death knell of postmillennialism. 

Jesus compares the condition of the world 
at His coming again to the days of Noah and 
of Lot; and these men lived in periods of 
earth’s greatest wickedness, for which God 
visited the world with flood and fire as a con¬ 
dign punishment. He drowned out those of 
Noah’s time, and burned out the sinners of 
Lot’s day. 

*r 

It is manifest from these scriptures that the 
woild will be in a state of great and almost 
universal wickedness when Jesus shall come 
again. 

Paul’s “perilous times” may well put to 
shame the theological visionaries who are ever 
presenting in roseate hue the glories which they 
declare are presently to break over the world 
through their human activities. 

Mr. Field tells us that the gospel shall have 
world-wide triumph, but that this shall be 
succeeded by fearful and almost universal 


214 


PostmlUeunialism and £he 




apostasy. But we will let him present two 
pictures of his own drawing: 

First, the gospel triumph. “It (the second 
coming of Christ) will not take place until the 
period expires for which Christ, as the Word 
Incarnate, is made the head of the universe. 
His government of His Church will be ever¬ 
lasting (Luke 1: 33). But His government of 
the universe in His capacity as Messian, ie- 
ferred to in Matthew 28: 18, is only for a 
limited term; namely, until the end for which 
it was delegated to Him is attained. That end 
is the subjugation of all His enemies (Psalms 
110:1. Matt. 22:44), the giving of repent¬ 
ance and remission of sins (Acts 5: 31), and, 
as we learn from many scriptures, the control 
of all events in subserviency to the interests 
and completion of the Church. And nothing 
can, we think, be more plainly taught than 
that He is to remain enthroned over the uni¬ 
verse in the heaven of heavens until all these 
purposes have been answered” (p.25o). 

On the same page he further says: “When 
the objects of His (Christ’s) mediatorial reign 
have been accomplished, His death on earth 
and His life in heaven having fully effected 
their respective ends, then He will close His 
administration by the last judgment, and the 
final separation of the righteous and the 
wicked, and give back the sceptre to Him by 
wTiom it was put into His hands, and the Divine 


Benj. Field’s “Handbook cf Theology.” 215 

administration of the universe shall go on as 
before. 

“if it be objected that the resurrection of 
the dead, and the new heavens and new earth 
are among the things foretold, but will not 
take place until after our Lord has come, my 
reply is, partly, that both events will occur 
at the very time when the second advent takes 
place; and, further, that although Christ will 
be ‘revealed’ before the renovation of the 
globe is perfected, He will but ‘appear in the 
air,’ and not until the new heavens and the 
new earth are perfected will the glorious Savior, 
with His people, come and take possession of 
this globe as their heritage and habitation” 
(p. 251). 

We will call the reader’s attention to four 
passages, and others of like import might be 
greatly multiplied. Let these answer our 
brother’s teaching: (a) Paul describes this as 
“an evil age”—not simply a part, but the 
whole of it is “evil.” If Mr. Field’s position 
be true and the whole world is to be subjected 
to the divine authority ere the age terminates, 
then Paul was mistaken. Mr. Field looks for 
a golden age, a world subdued, the nations 
redeemed, all enemies of our Lord over thrown, 
and the earth ready for its Edenization—and 
all this to be accomplished in the present age, 
before our Lord’s return. 


216 PofitmilleKnialism and The Higher Critics 

Now, I submit these two men cannot both 
be right; they contradict each other. To accept 
the teaching of Benjamin Field I must repudiate 
Paul; to accept the authority of Paul I am 
compelled to repudiate the teachings of Field. 
Without hesitation, Mr. Field must go. I stick 
to Paul. 

(b) Again Paul calls Satan “the god of this 
age.'’ (2 Cor. 4:4). Mr. Field tells us that 
ere the age ends Jesus, by the gospel agencies 
now at work, will subdue all the powers of 
evil and bring in His own everlasting kingdom, 
which he says “shall have its fullest develop¬ 
ment on earth ere this dispensation close” 
(p. 256). Jesus will one day be “King” and 
“God over all” in this world. But if Paul is 
reliable, that glorious day lies beyond the 
termination of the present age, of which Satan 
is “god.” Again, we are forced to take issue 
with Field or with Paul. Our choice is made; 
we stand with Paul. Manifestly, Satan must 
be dislodged as god of this world and cast out 
before we can have the millennium. But with 
Satan cast out this “evil age” ends, and another 
and better age begins. 

(c) “The man of sin” shall be consumed by 
the word of the Savior’s mouth; that is, by the 
gospel, but his destruction is not complete. He 
yet remains intact until the coming of our Lord, 
who shall “destroy him with the brightness of 


Benj. Field’s 4 ‘Handbook of Theolog^y.” 217 

his appearing.” (2 Thess. 2: 1-8). Similarly, 
we read that the “false prophet” shall be cap¬ 
tured and thrust alive into a lake of fire at the 
coming of the Lord. The dragon will also be 
imprisoned for a thousand years at the same 
time. According to John, the overthrow of 
this trinity of hell occurs not by the gospel, but 
at the closing of the present dispensation, by 
the manifested glory of the coming of the 
King of kings. (Rev. 19.) Gospel agencies 
are not equal to the destruction of these foes, 
but their overthrow is sure when the King rides 
forth on His white horse, followed by the armies 
of heaven upon white horses. Thus Paul and 
John, two first century premillenarians, stand 
up boldly against our nineteenth century friend, 
benjamin Field, noted postmillennialist. 

(d) But we will give another passage from 
the greatest of all premillenarians, Bishop of 
souls, our Lord Jesus Christ. As though spoken 
of purpose to correct Field and other postmil- 
lennialists who predict the overthrow of all evil 
by the gospel, our Master tells us that “the 
Son of man” sows the good seed; “the enemy” 
sov/s the tares which grow up and choke the 
wheat. In that early day the Sower had some 
postmillennial servants. They proposed to go 
and “gather up” the tares. They saw in their 
imagination a field of golden grain with never 
a “tare” in sight, but the Master replies: “No; 
lest as ye gather up the tares ye root up the 


218 Postmillsnnialism and The Higher Critics 

wheat with them. Let both grow together till 
harvest.” (Matt. 13:29,30,37.) So Mr. Field 
is not against Paul and John only, but he has 
arrayed himself against all premlllenarians, 
including our Lord Jesus. The tares, the beast, 
the false prophet and the dragon, which is 
Satan himself, god of the age, are all here in 
full force right down at the end, when, at the 
return of Jesus, they are overthrown and en¬ 
tirely eliminated. If the authorities we have 
quoted, including the greatest in the world— 
Jesus, Paul and John—are premillenarians, 
and their words prove it, who can afford to 
follow the meanderings of any nineteenth cen¬ 
tury postmillennialist? 

Mr. Field repudiates the literal thousand-year 
period, as he does the literal casting out of 
Satan, the literal resurrection of the saints at 
the beginning of the millennium, and* the literal 
reign of Jesus on the earth. So he speaks 
of “the period called a thousand years,” which 
he argues “might be a long and indefinite 
period, possibly three hundred and sixty-five 
thousand years.” Now, the strangest thing 
yet in this hotch-potch theology is that the 
writer himself confesses a widespread apostasy, 
v Inch he eloquently portrays as following a 
gospel-wrought millennium of such a long and 
wonderful period. Here he gives a description 
of the fearful apostasy of those sad coming 
days: 



Eenj, Field’s “Handbook of Theology,’- 1519 

“With the expiration of the period signified 
by the thousand years, the martyrs and con¬ 
fessors cease to live and reign; i. e., the prac¬ 
tice and profession of pure Christianity rapidly 
decline. The rest of the dead’ live again;i. e., 
characters such as abounded in the ages before 
the millennium—infidels, liars, robbers, mur¬ 
derers, profligates, worldlings, and the like— 
will abound in all directions. Then forth comes 
the giant fiend, prepared and maddened to do 
his worst, surpassing, if possible, in malice, 
subtlety and power, all that he had been or 
done before. Those will be fearful days to 
live in. The Holy Spirit will almost entirely 
suspend His influence in quickening men, and 
the devil will all but universally and totally 
possess them; for ‘he shall go out to deceive 
the nations that are in the four quarters of the 
earth.’ Moreover, the vision seems to indicate 
that the whole mass of unbelievers will be 
joined together in one common Teague against 
God and His Church, comparatively carrying 
all before them. (Rev. 20: 8, 9.) And now 
.the cause of wickedness has gained all but a 
complete triumph, and the cause of righteous¬ 
ness, once everywhere predominant, has be¬ 
come all but extinct. And in that very moment 
of last extremity the day of redemption to 
the righteous and of final doom to the ungodly 
blazes forth upon the world. Just as the 
devil’s embattled legions “compass the camp 


220 PostmiSiesmialbm and The Higher Critics 

of the saints,” fire from heaven devours them, 
the devil is cast into the lake of fire, the great 
white throne is set, and the scenes of eternity 
are ushered in. (Rev. 20: 9-15.) 

“This we conceive to ibe the doctrine of the 
New Testament as to the time and circum¬ 
stances of our Lord’s second advent” (p. 257). 

Our brother seems to be very much confused. 
It is caused by his doctrine, which teaches that 
the world can be won to God, kept in the way 
of holiness for three hundred and sixty-five 
thousand years, and then all of a sudden the 
powers of darkness revive, the forces of hell 
mass themselves, and the enemy with one fell 
swoop drives in upon the Church as a con¬ 
suming foe, and the Lord and His people lose 
all that has been gained in these multiplied 
thousands of years. This is certainly not taught 
in the Bible. It is absolutely discouraging, 
and practically brings the devil out triumphant 
over the forces that have so recently been 
victorious. 

The Bible story is far different. The devil 
holds the mastery until “the present evil age” 
closes; and this certainly cannot ibe far away. 
Then the conquering Christ and the legions of 
His saints sweep Satan from the field, turn 
back the tides of wickedness, and plant the 
banner of King Jesus on the wreck of Satan’s 
strongholds. While there shall be, after the 
end of the thousand years, a small temporary 


fienj. Field’s “Handbook of Theology.*’ 221 

rebellion, it shall scarcely get into action until 
fire falling from heaven devours every enemy 
in the concatenated ranks of Satan. The leader 
of these rebellious hosts is then cast info- the 
lake of fire, from which he shall escape no 
more forever. His doom is sealed, and sin 
here finds its end. This is simple, clear, scrip¬ 
tural truth, whereas our brother’s dreams have 
no scriptural basis, are untrue in fact, and dis¬ 
honoring to God. 

We find it very easy to agree with him in 
his treatment of 2 Thessalonians 2: 1-12. He 
speaks of Romanism as “the present great doc¬ 
trinal and ecclesiastical apostasy from Chris¬ 
tianity. What answers to the object here por¬ 
trayed has been for ages standing out before 
Europe and the world in the system of popery! 
In her unscriptural dogma ‘the mystery of 
iniquity’ is exhibited in fearful contrast to the 
‘great mystery of godliness.’ She is organized 
under a visible head, who sets himself above 
all authority whatsoever on earth, showing 
himself to ibe in the place of God. And she 
is supported and propagated by means of the 
frauds she has practiced,, and the false miracles 
she has wrought—her adherents never hesi¬ 
tating to forward their designs ‘after the work¬ 
ing of Satan, with all power and signs and 
lying wonders.’ But that system shall gradually 
waste away under the influence of Divine 
truth, signified by the ‘spirit of Christ’s mouth,’ 


222 PestmilknniaKtni and The Higher Critic* 


till at length comes the time of the judgment 
of the great whore’ (Rev. 18), when the giant 
apostasy, which for centuries has been the 
dread and the curse of Christendom, shall be 
engulfed in utter destruction.” 


Further, concerning this evil power, in speak¬ 
ing of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Dan.2), con¬ 
necting it also with Daniel’s vision (7: 1-27), 
Mr. Field correctly says: “The fourth beast 
was the Roman Emperor; the ten horns are 
the various states into which that empire was 
broken up; and what is the "little horn/ that 
sprang up among the ten horns of the Roman 
beast, but the papacy? Every sentence of verses 
24 and 2 5 applies most emphatically to that 
iniquitous system; but the hour when 'the judg¬ 
ment shall sit’ and 'take away his dominion’ 
shall arrive, and not less surely shall ‘the peo¬ 
ple of the saints of the Most High’ be estab¬ 
lished in ascendancy all over the world.” (See 
also Rev. 7: 1-4; Hand Book, pp. 252, 255.) 

It is undoubtedly true that the Pope of 
Rome is the beast portrayed in Daniel and 
Revelaton. He is als© “the man of sin” (2 
Thess. 2) and shall be destroyed when our Lord 
returns. No mere gospel preaching is in itself 
sufficient to effect his destruction, but St. Paul 
positively states that this shall be accomplished 
at the personal appearing in glory of the Lord 
Jesus. (2 Thess. 2:8.) 


Eenj. Fields “Handbook of Theology.” 


223 


I can also heartily agree with him in the 
description he gives of “the long prevailing 
Oriental imposture which (he says) will dis¬ 
appear under the influence of Providence, with¬ 
out any movement of external violence.” 1 
would not exactly word this as he has, unless 
I might add the word “human” to violence, 
for that this evil power shall be destroyed by 
the King when He comes is plainly revealed 
in Revelation, 19th chapter. But we continue 
our quotation: “We refer to the religion which 
the Prophet of Mecca broached 1,200 years 
ago, and which upwards of 1,000 years before 
that date had been described by Daniel. (Chap. 
8.) He first tells us of the rise of the joint 
empire of the Medes and Persians, and of the 
junior portion of.the monarchy becoming the 
ascendant, and pushing its conquest at will 
(verses 3-20). Then we have Alexander the 
Great utterly demolishing the Medo-Persian 
power, and he himself cut off in the zenith 
of his glory, his dominion being divided after 
his death into four sovereignties (verses 5-8, 
21,22). Then follows a description of the 
rise, progress and end of Mohammedanism 
(verses 9-12,23-25). Mohammed could not 
be more aptly described than as ‘a king of fierce 
countenance.’ His religion is one of ‘dark sen¬ 
tences.' He arose and broached it in the eastern 
of the four kingdoms alluded to ‘in the latter 

time of their kingdom,’ 1,000 years after 


224 PostRiillcnnialism and The Higher Critics 

Alexander’s death; and “when the transgres¬ 
sors were come to the full,” that is, just at 
the time when the Bishop of Rome attained 
the long-struggled-for ecclesiastical ascendancy. 
History and the present state of the world fell 
us how great he became; but he was raised 
to his greatness by the arms of the Saracens, 
and “not by his own power.” He was per¬ 
mitted to set himself against the Christianity 
which then prevailed by reason of the corrup¬ 
tion which abounded, or, as the prophecy ex¬ 
presses it, “a host was given him against the 
daily sacrifice by reason of transgression.” 
Whether by “peace” he has destroyed many, 
let the influnce of sensuality tolerated by his 
system testify. And whether he has not “stood 
up against the Prince of Princes,” his rivalship 
of the Savior in the regard of mankind will 
at once determine. But one brief sentence 
records his doom: “He shall be broken with¬ 
out hand,” a statement which seems to indicate 
that the destruction of the Oriental imposture 
will be the effect of no martial assault, but 
will rather be the special doing of Providence; 
perhaps by means of principles and habits 
infused among its votaries, and working unob¬ 
served till they have sapped its foundations and 
killed its very core” (p. 253). Mr. Field 
simply fails to see that “the false prophet” is 

“cast into the lake of fire” when Jesus comes. 
(Rev. 19: 20.) 


Beni. Field’s “Handbook of Theology.” 225 

I have elsewhere shown that the three false 
religions of the world, which each possesses 
a body and a head, shall be absolutely broken 
and dissolved by the capture of their heads 
and leaders when Jesus comes. Satan is en¬ 
throned in paganism; it is his body; he its 
head. “The beast,” the Antichrist, the Pope 
of Rome, is head of the old hag, that sensuous 
thing that calls itself “the Holy Catholic 
Church.” “The false prophet,” as we have 
elsewhere shown, is the head of Mohammedan¬ 
ism. They lovingly call him “The Prophet.” 
God accepts their own title, but adds the quali¬ 
fying term “false,” so that his title in the 
Scripture is “the false prophet.” 

These brutal, corrupt, hell-born religions, 
supplemented by paganism, hold more than 
fourteen hundred mililions of earth’s benighted 
population under their seductive power. But 
when their heads are cut off, the bodies rap¬ 
idly disintegrate, and the glorious gospel of 
Jesus Christ shall then bring them, in the happy 
millennial period, in teeming millions to the 
knowledge of the true God and His only be- 

4 

gotten Son. Hallelujah! No preaching of 
ours, while these chieftains of hell are yet en¬ 
throned, can break their power, but “the Lion 
of the tribe of Judah” shall win the day and 
destroy every evil and resisting force. 


22 ® PostmsUcnnialkm and 1 he Higher. Critics 


Field on the Resurrection. 


( ; i 


,M i 


Mr. Field treats with carefulness this doctrine. 
Some of his points are conclusive and very 
satisfying; but when he falls into the post- 
millennial notion of the simultaneous resurrec¬ 
tion of all the dead, he goes far astray. T© 
this point we shall confine our further remarks. 

We quote as follows: “The milienarian view 
is that the resurrection of the righteous will 
occur at the commencement, and that of the 
wicked at the close of the thousand years of 
millennial glory. The teachings of Scripture 
appear to us to be very decisive that they will 
rill be raised at once” (p. 268 ). 

1 ■} r {1 r \ •') -I r: t '»rf i <i *jn rr : « \ 

Now, I do not, for my part, teach that all 
the saved will be raised immediately on the 
coming of our Lord, and that only the wicked 
dead will remain to be raised at the close of 
the millennium. Of course, others—even some 
premillennialists — might accept the notion 
which he attributes to us all; I do not. It 
seems to me that only those who have devel¬ 
oped a holy, strong, well-rounded and fruitful 
Christian life will be raised at His coming. 

rilfli 3'ij iO/iQh v 

And why? Because they are to be His sub¬ 


rulers. They are to reign with Him; and only 
those well equipped in character and experience 
are prepared for such positions as will be 
accorded the first resurrection saints in the 
kingdom of the Son of Man. 



Bc«j. Field’s “Ha*<iho*k of Thaokty.” 287 


_• IJiaya no doubt -that; many v/III in the ulti¬ 
mate resurrection, at the close of the thousand 
years, be raised from a.U the centuries of human 
history- who will find, themselves among those 
at the Lord’s right hand in the great, separating, 
judgment. _ Furthermore,, gpo.d people,as well 
as sinners die during the millennium, and thes.e 
must be separated in that: great day.. I do not 
care to .go. further into this phase of the.q.ues- 
tem at present, though.it would be an interesting: 
study pour, space is limited.I i2 . 0 t 
ii The Judgment .of “the. .great white throne” 
1$ the same as that described by Jesus in the 
2 5th chapter of Matthew 3 1-46; this includes 
all the dead of the thousand-year period and 
all the dead of all the ages except such as were 
found faithful and fully qualified to reign with 
Him over the nations during the millennium. 

Our friend asserts that “all will be raised 
st ©Ece.” The bold-face type is his. Of course, 
there are some passages of Scripture that, if 
they are not studied in connection with others, 
might leave this impression; but we must re¬ 
member that “no prophecy of the Scripture 
is of -any private (or separate) interpretation.” 
(2 Pet. 1: 20.) •’ '' 1 1 1 - 

In John 5: 28 , 29 our Lord says:” “The hour 
is coming in which all that are in the graves 
shall heir-his voice, and shall come forth; 
they that have done good unto the resurrecton 
#f life; and they that have done evil unt© the 



228 Poshmllenniaiism «md The Higher Critics 

resurrection of damnation.” Now, if this dec¬ 
laration stood alone we would at once confess 
the justice of our brother’s teaching; but some 
other Scriptures must be connected in order to 
reach the true meaning. Any interpretation of 
this that makes it to contradict other passages 
equally strong and clear must be erroneous. 

The word rendered “hour” in the Greek is 
“hora.” That it is not limited to an hour of 
sixty minifies ps capable of demonstration. 
Ror example, St # John said, “Even now are 
there are many Antichrists, whereby we know it 
is the last time.” (1 John 1:18). The word 
rendered “time” is “hora.” If John was in the 
last hour, and it is continuing yet, we would 
certainly call it a long, long “hour.” Here are 
more than eighteen centuries in this “last hour.” 
Now, when Jesus said that all should be raised 
in an “hour,” and John has shown us that this 
“hour” may be more than eighteen hundred 
years long, we have nothing herein to contra¬ 
dict the idea of two resurrections, one at the 
beginning, the other at the end of the thousand 
year period. 

•In proof that there are two distinct resur¬ 
rections or more, 1 submit the following: 

(1) The two-fold resurrection is directly 
asserted by St. John in Revelation 20. He says: 
“I saw fne souls of them that were beheaded 
for the witness of Jesus, and for the Word of 
God, and of such as did not worship the beast 


Eenj. Field's “Handbook of Theology.** 229 

. . . and they lived and reigned with Christ 
a thousand years; but the rest of the dead lived 
not again until the thousand years were finished. 
This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy 
is he that hath part in the first resurrection.” 
Now here are a few simple facts: (a) He saw 
the '‘souls” of martyrs; (b) then he saw them 
after the resurrection, saying “they lived” and 
reigned with Christ; (c) John calls this “the 
first resurrection”; (d) he gives as a qualifica¬ 
tion essential for a share in this first resurrec¬ 
tion, holiness of character; only such have a 
part therein; (e) he then informs us that “the 
rest of the dead lived not again,” were not 
raised till the completion of the thousand years. 
If the martyrs are not literally raised, then the 
“rest of the dead” are not literally raised. And 
thus we lose the whole doctrine and fact of the 
resurrection. 

Thus John gives us a very straight story. 
Every item in it stands out distinct. It is the 
kind of testimony that we believe would pass 
in afiy court of justice; and these things were 
revealed to him from heaven, thus having the 
sanction of the skies. Who may impeach the 
testimony of this man of God? How will Mr. 
Field or any other man stand up in the great 
day before the Lord Jesus Christ and dispute 
this plain, clear, easy-to-be-understood testi¬ 
mony of the beloved disciple? Beware, reader! 
John stands high at court. 


230 Foaimillenniaiism ^d The Higher Critics 

** V- V*. ^ " 


(2) From two Pauline passages, in two 
separate epistles, to two distinct churches, I 
find clearly revealed his belief, in two resurrec- 
tions. Observe these passages and see if I 
am not right. In Philippians 3: 8-12 the 
apostle shows, the importance of an absolute 
surrender , to Christ. ‘ He repudiates hum.an 
righteousness, showing our dependence on a 

^ j, 1 j y {4 ■ C Uy »• ■ * a < - . .* C JX * i*iCw i 

divinely-imparted righteousness. ‘That I, may 
know him, and the power of his resurrection, 
and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made 
conformable, unto hia deathg if by..any means 
L might attain unto the resurrection of the 
dead., . : » ; ■.«.v , - > r <•< *, ; ' * 

„ . . j y „y t . > * • • • - .. . i :j •_/ * ♦ i ... ■ i J - x j * ■ v - - .* * 

The preposition “of” here is unfortunate, as 
it would imply that if one did not thus strive 


he would not be raised from the dead. One 
can readily see that this would land us in 
materialism, since those who did not strive 
would not have a share in the resurrection. 
But we know this is not true. Paul affirms 


a- universal resurrection in these words, “As 
in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be 
made alive.” (1 Cor. 15: 22.) Hence no man 
is. compelled to strive for a resurrection. It 
comes to all, both the good and the bad; to 
the righteous and to the unrighteous. So it 
is clear that Paul’s mind is not correctly inter¬ 
preted in this translation. The Revised Version 
uses the word “from” in preference to “of,” 
thus making Paul say he was striving to obtain 



Benj. Fields “Handbook of Aheology.” 231 


a resurrection from the dead. But even this 


does not bring out the full force of the Greek 
text, “Exanastssis ten ek nekron,” of which 
scholars tell us a literal translation would be 

-• (r]T f f 

‘The out-resurrection from among the dead 

tit Hlf ■ r;:r. ;: f, ; ".ill /»i It f'i , {; i,; > 0 j I i l IT) 

one^. 

The Greek word for death in the abstract, is 


Thanatps ” whereas the word for “dead ones,” 
in the concrete, is “nekron.” Now, Paul does 
not say that he is striving if by ,any means 
he might escape from the dominion of death 
(“thanatos”), but from, the presence or com¬ 
pany of the dead ones (“nekron”). There is 
no possible solution of this scripture except 
that Paul believed that followers of Jesus, those 
who make good on the highest levels, shall 
leave the other dead ones a thousand years 
behind, and come forth separate and apart from 
them, rising to a glory and dignity of which 
they who had lived carelessly or wickedly shall 
not partake. In this we see that Paul agrees 
perfectly with John. 

In'yet another passage the great apostle says: 
‘ The Lord Himself shall descend from heaven 
with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, 
and with the trump of God; and the dead in 
Christ shall rise first; then they which are alive 
and remain shall be caught up together V/ith 
them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; 
so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (1 Thess. 
A T6,17.) Observe the following points: 


232 Po*imiUennialism and The Higher Critics 

(a) This is at the advent of Jesus, who de¬ 
scends from heaven; (b) the trumpet sounds, 
the archangel calls; (c) the holy dead arise; 
(d) this is followed, not by the raising of the 
rest of the dead, but by the catching up of 
the holy living. The word “then” simply means 
“next.” 

Had the other dead been raised at the same 
time with the saints, Paul could not have truth¬ 
fully stated the case as he did. He gives two 
things in direct conjunction. The raising of 
certain dead, namely, the Lord’s own; and this, 
without any place for the raising of sinners, 
is to be followed immediately, as the “next” 
thing on the docket, by the translation of those 
living ones who are waiting for and love His 
appearing. Now, I submit to any candid mind: 
There is no place here for the resurrection 
of any but the Lord’s own; and Paul passes 
on to the discussion of other matters. We 
know that he believed in the resurrection of all 
the dead; he so affirmed in his epistle to the 
Corinthians. The conclusion is clear that he 
agrees with John that the resurrection of the 
holy and of the unholy does not occur at the 
same time, our friend Field to the contrary 
notwithstanding. 

With these, His two faithful servants, Jesus 
Himself agrees. He approved of those who 
feed His poor, such as “cannot recompense” 
them, and promises them the full recompense 


Renj, Field’s “Handbook of Theology.” 233 

at the resurrection, of all the dead? No; but 
at “the resurrection of the just.” (Luke 14: 
14.) 

In a similar vein He answers the Sadducees 
thus: “They which shall be accounted worthy 
to obtain that world, and the resurrection from, 
or ‘from among,’ the dead, neither marry nor 
are given in marriage.” Now here He speaks 
of a class; they are His, His faithful ones, who 
administer to the poor and do good in His 
name and He describes them as those “who 
are accounted worthy” of a resurrection to 
htfnor and glory, and, like Paul’s desired resur¬ 
rection, it is “from among the dead ones.” 
Thus we have a plain case of a resurrection 
separate from the rest of the dead. And the 
testimony we here offer is from John, from 
Paul, and from Jesus. No higher witnesses can 
be found on earth or in heaven. If they 
taught a two-fold resurrection, ministers of the 
gospel today should do likewise. 

Let us examine an Old Testament prophet, 
one who gives a beautiful testimony concerning 
the two-fold resurrection. I speak of Isaiah 
26 : 19-21. He gives here a very clear state¬ 
ment of three things: (a) the resurrection of 
the saints; (b) the rapture of the redeemed at 
the marriage supper of the Lamb; (c) the 
great tribulation, from which the saints have 
just escaped by the rapture. Notice how the 


234 PostmTIenrJsdishi and The Higher Critics 

great prophet puts the case. “Thy dead men 
shall live, together with my dead body' shall 
they arise.” The better rendering perhaps 
would be: “They are my dead body; they shall 


arise.” It is a simple declaration from Jesus 
Christ, Head of the Church, that God’s holy 
ones who are in their tombs are to Him as 
His own body, and that He, Lord of Life, will 
see to it that they shall be raised from among 
the dead. He now addresses these holy dead 
in the following words: “Awake and sing, ye 
that dwell in dust; for thy dew Is as the dew 
of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.” 
Thus His word is concerning the raising of the 


Lord’s dead, those who can “awake and sing” 
at the appearing of their glorious King, Sin¬ 
ners do not belong fo the singing crowd; 
Rather, they will shrink from the appearing of 
the Judge, ; and seek to hide themselves in the 
caves and beneath the mountains of earth. 

After the raising of the saints, the call is 
made for all His people, those from among the 
living' and those who have just come forth 
from their graves: 


“Come, my people, enter thou into thy 
chambers, and shut thy doors about thee; hide 
thyself as it were for a little moment, until 
the indignation (tribulation) be overpast.” 
Blessed call; a call from the living God to His 
saints of all ages, bidding them enter irifa 
their inheritance with Him. This is the rapture. 


Benj. Field’s “Handbook of Theology.” 235 


We remember that Jesus said to His disci¬ 
ples: “I go to prepare a place for you. And 
if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come 
again, and receive you unto myself ; that where 
I am, there ye. may be also.” (John 14:3) 


If a multimillionaire has selected him a bride, 
choice among earth’s millions, he will most 
likely before his marriage build for her a beau¬ 
tiful home, a mansion. So with our Lord 
Jesus. He lias for a long time been absent 
in the heavenly world preparing a home for 
His bride. The nuptial day hastens; soon the 
marriage of the Lamb will be announced, and 
we will hear that “all things are now ready.” 
Seeing the tribulation about to sweep the world 
as with a besom of destruction, He calls up 
His- bride from the regions of the dead and 
from the walks of the living, and says, ‘The 
mansion is prepared; come, it is thine; a great 
storm is. brewing, and is about to break over 
the world, but it shall not touch thee; that 
Won mayest not only escape the storm, W 
may not even be forced to witness its destruc- 
tion, enter into the chambers that are thine 
and safely hide thyself away from the terrible 
coming storm.” 


Thus we have two features connected with 
the second advent set forth by the ancient 
prophet of God, and here he agrees exactly 
with John and Paul in their declarations of 



236 PostmillennirJkm and The Higher Critics 

like intent. The remaining* item is that of the 
great tribulation. Hear the prophet: 

“For, behold, the Lord cometh out of H<s 
place (heaven) to punish the inhabitants of 
the earth for their iniquity; the earth also shall 
disclose her blood, and shall no more cover 
her slain.” These words are few, but O, how 
full of meaning. The earth disclosing its blood 
evidently means that in that awful period blood 
shall flow along the streets and highways 

When He says that “earth shall no more cover 
her slain,” we are given to understand that 
in that tribulation the dead will be so numerous 
that they will lie unburied in the streets of the 
cities and on the highways of commerce. Thus 
the old premillennial prophet foresaw (a) the 
rising of the holy dead; (b) the rapture of 
all the saints; (c) the great tribulation. 

So the truths we teach are not dependent 
on a strained interpretation of a few disjointed 
scriptures, but are clearly revealed by many 
inspired writers, both from the Old and New 
Testament Scriptures. 


L. L. P. 


CHAPTER X. 
i he Appeal to History. 

It is the province of history to relate what 
has been, and the province of prophecy to 
declare what will be. History, therefore, is a 
record or recital of the past, while prophecy 
is primarily a prediction of the future. Con¬ 
fidence in the common course of Nature and 
the law of continuity enable us to rest in the 
stability and solidity of the present order of 
things and to infer that the future shall be 
modeled, to a certain extent, after the form 
and fashion cf the past. But the unexpected 
shall happen, changes will take place, crises 
will come and new things, unrecounted in the 
annals of history, shall transpire. While we 
know the past, we can only guess the future. 
We know not what a day may bring forth, 
much less a year, a decade, a century. 

History cannot sit in judgment upon the doc¬ 
trine of the second advent, either to approve' 
or condemn, because history deals exclusively 
with the past, whereas the second coming is 
still in the future. History does not apply to 
eschatological subjects. Just as “books must 
follow sciences and not sciences books,” so 
history must follow facts and not facts history. 
History arrives too late in the day to settle 
the millennial dispute, the apocalyptic contro¬ 
versy. For history cannot record the second 


238 Pdstm&ldzifti&lkia anil The Higher Crtacs 

advent until that event first takes place, and 
then the question will he soiled ipso facto, 
history or no history. 

' 

Having repudiated the predictive element in 
prophecy, the modern postmilleriniajists appeal 
to history. Dr. George P. Mains takes up on© 
whole chapter in his book on “Premlliennial- 
ism” in trying to prove that premillennialism 
is unhistorical. Professor Rail remarks that 

- • > > ■ -' . .J . 1 • '. » •/ . : Sit* ^ i‘ .• ;, i , J 

Luther and Calvin had too much of historic 
sense for them to accept the principles of pre- 
miilennialism. Plain history, he asserts, has 
disprove!! the doctrine of infallibility Dr. 
Shailer Mathews declares in his pamphlet, 
“Will Christ Come Again?” that “the belief 
in the speedy end of the world and the physical 
coming of Jesus cannot be squared today with 
the belief in the continuance of history, the 
findings of modern science, with the spiritual 

v-? - - • * . .. k :» / j C. v i ’ i U • . i 


application” (p. 16). Speakinj 
premillennialists, he saysj “They have always 
been mistaken, just as the early Christians were 
mistaken—the world is not coming to a speedy 
end. History will continue to be made” (p. 
8). We do not claim that the world (cosmos!) 
is coming to an end, but that the age (eon) 
is coming to an end. Of course, history will 
continue to be made after Christ conies. We 


§3' 


’HO 


i he Appeal to dasiory 


*r * f** H O <rv % 

• [jsifmoLuni'l&o i jju 


239 

will nuke history on a tremendous scale during 
the millennium. But history will follow events, 
not precede them. “We challenge any premil- 
lenanan,” says Mathews, “to name the day, and 
then shall wait until that day, confident that 
he is mistaken’' (p. 7). In reply, we challenge 
any postmillenarian to na*re the day when all 
the world will be converted before Christ 
comes, and tnen shall wait until that day, .com 

fident that La is mistaken. The past will show 

11 

that the postmillennialists have bumped up 
against history as well as premillennialists. 

There is only one thing in connection with 
premillennialism that has been disproven fcy 
history, and that is really no part of pure pre¬ 
millennialism. We refer to the unscriptural 
idea of setting the date of the second advent. 
No man knows “the day or the hour.” No 
prominent premillennialist in the world today 
attempts to name the day of Christ’s coming. 
The postmillennialists, as usual, are entirely 
off the question in raising such a hue and cry 
on this particular point. Let us quote from a 
modern authority on the subject. Dr. S. D. 
Gordon, prominent premillennialist, in “Quiet 
Talks -About Our Lord’s Return,” says: “We 

are not to be concerned with counting dates, 
nor figuring out probable times,” (p. 162). 
Rev. R. C. Shimeaii, author of a large volume 


-r'iV r ] 


on the 


second coming of Christ from the pre- 


240 Fostmillenmallsm and The Higher Critics 

millennial standpoint, was a member of the 
New York Presbytery. He wrote in 1873. He 
declared that “While the coming is imminent, 
it is the height of folly and a miserable delu¬ 
sion for any to presume to fix upon a definite 
period therefor.” 

Dr. Henry C. Sheldon, postmillennialist, who 
is more careful and conservative than Rail, 
Snowden and Mains, concedes that “history 
has no authoritative message to offer on the 
nearness or remotness of the second advent” 
(p. 148). Of course, in common with both 
premillennialists and postmillennialists, he con¬ 
demns all attempts to fix the time of Christ’s 
appearing. 

We may study epochs, eras, dispensations, 
diagrams, programs and signs of the times, but 
it is unwise and unscriptural to attempt to set 
the day of His coming. John Fletcher, the 
vicar of Madely, the coadjutor of John Wesley 
and one of the greatest polemics of all time, 
hit the nail on the head when he declared*: 
“I know many have been grossly mistaken as 
to the years; but because they were rash, shall 
we be stupid? Because they said ‘today/ shall 
we say never? ” 

The premillennial doctrine has suffered by 
the misrepresentations of its enemies, as well 
as by the indiscretions of its friends. Many 
have charged the premillennialists with absurd 
and impious opinions which they never held. 


241 


Tha Appeal to History 

The postmillennialists, as a rule, classify even 
the modified, optimistic, Arminian premiilen- 
lialists with the Anabaptists, the Fifth-mon¬ 
archy men, the madmen of Munster, the French 
prophets, the Millerites, the Dowieites and the 
Russellftes. Dr. J. A. Seiss very justly protests 
against making “all deductions from prophecy 
bear the odium and ridicule excited by the 
vagaries of uninformed and credulous men” as 
being “neither sensible, pious, nor respectful to 
the Word of God.” “We have nothing to do,” 
says he, “with the crudities and wild imaginings 
of a sensual Cerinthus, the fanatical Anabap¬ 
tists, pr the injudicious Father Miller.” It is 
very unfair and unjust in the postmillennialists 
to put all the premillennialists in a class with 
Miller, Dowie and Russell. Think about classi¬ 
fying such men as Moody, Talmadge, Wilbur 
Chapman, C. I. Scofield, G. Campbell Morgan, 
James Gray and R. A. Torrey with Dowie and 
Russell! There is ;a vast difference, not only 
between the caliber and character of these two 
groups of men, but between their respective 
theories. in regard to the second coming of 
Christ and the millennium. Suppose their 
views are similar in some respects. Similarity 
is not identity. There is a similarity between 
the views of the modern postmillennialists and 
the Roman Catholics, Christian Scientists and 
Comeouters. They all agree in their opposition 
to the personal premillennial coming of Christ. 


242 Postmiil«niiiaii«h asid The Higher Critics 

, • A r 1 r . t t , s t i {;. r j , y •* | . j t r i * / j ? 

Lei no one think that premillennialism con¬ 
sists in fighting social reforms, discounting 
democracy, denouncing the church, opposing 
scholarship, refusing to participate in political 
campaigns, taking cracks at creation, getting 

sour on the world and setting dates for the 

- 

final consummation. It is possible to assist 
in all modern reforms and missionary move- 
ments; and at the same time insist that they 
cannot consummate arid constitute the millen¬ 
nium. “To make the millennium” is not the 

, p r n j i • * L V hn_f± ii l lllIT,*' * ) \ • h j j W 

only motive for Christian work in this world. 

The modern postrnillennialists seem to have a 

monomania for manufacturing the millennium. 

While we admire their pluck, we pity their 
j!u [ J 

judgment. 


Vi i 


We admit that some premillennialists have 
set the date for the second coming and have 

, , ■/ iiMjctfiiji ’ .«j Lmnojc, .i ..v nimirnm 

had their calendar calculations upset by history. 
But let us mention a few instances where history 

r 

has disproves the presumptions of postmillea- 

. .. 


nialism. 

IJ 


f f(! 


1. St. Augustine imagined that the overthrow 
of paganism and the establishment of Chris¬ 
tianity in the Roman Empire under Constantine 
the Great was the beginning of the millennium. 
What has history done for this opinion? Did 
lily premilleniiialist ever' make as great a 


mistake ? 


. rf* '{*<* I! ft 4 ?i I f *$£*’3 JTtO J 

2 . Some postmillennialists claim that the 
ccond advent of Christ occurred at the dcstruc- 




I ->. 1 . i 




The Appeal to History 




243 


tion of Jerusalem by the Roman army under 
Titus in A. D. 70. What is this but setting 
the date of His coming, though it is set in the 
past instead of the future? History has long 
since given this postmillennial delusion the lie. 
A judicial, providential, spiritual coming is' not 
the promised personal premillennial coming of 
Christ. (Acts 1: 11-13; 2 Thess. 2.) 

3. Hildebrand or Pope Gregory VII assumed 
the vice-gerency of Christ on earth and affirmed 
the regal state of the church in the world. 
What was this but a bold attempt to prema¬ 
turely inaugurate millennial conditions ? Gerald 
Birney Smith says in the Univemdy Chicago 
Sermons: 'The dream of Hildebrand was but 
the serious attempt to put into effect this 
religious (millennial) faith” (p, 279). How 
absurd, unreasonable and is$&st$ric$l was this 
assumption and presumption of Hildebrand! 
When Dr. George P. Mains was writing his 
chapter on the unhistorical character c-.f pre- 
millennfalism, why did he not frankly admit 
that postmillennialism presents a few unhis- 
torical features? 

4. Calvin tried to miIlonniais.se Geneva, 
Gerald Birney Smith (University of Chicago 
Sermons, p. 280) again says: "Nor was this 
interpretation of the kingdom hope confined 
to Catholicism. Did not Calvin in Geneva 
attempt precisely the same program on a 
small scale? Did he not hold-that we may 



244 Poetmillcnnialism 2 nd The Higher Critics 

draw from the Bible divine direction for a 
righteous state? Did not Cromwell believe 
himself commissioned to establish a state in 
which should dwell the righteousness of God? ” 
These mistakes arise from postmillennial prin¬ 
ciples. They are the unsuccessful, unscriptural 
and unhistorical attempts to inaugurate millen¬ 
nial conditions before the personal coming of 
Christ. The application of premillennial prin¬ 
ciples would have prevented all these postmil¬ 
lennial blunders. Premillennialism does not 
postulate or expect millennial conditions until 
Christ comes. 

5. The Puritans, while probably premillen¬ 
nial in general, made a serious mistake by 
applying postmillennial principles. We offer 
another quotation from Gerald Birney Smith 
(University of Chicago Sermons, p. 280) : 
“Did not our Puritan fathers attempt to con¬ 
tract in America a theocracy from which all 
wickedness should be banished by divine author¬ 
ity? ” In other words, they tried to inaugurate 
millennial conditions before ;the coming of 
Christ. This unwarranted and unscriptural 
attempt always has and ever will issue in failure 
and confusion. The Puritans applied this kind 
of logic: The meek shall inherit the earth. 
We are the meek. Therefore we shall inherit 
the earth. So they took their guns and drove 
people from their own land. The premillennial 
doctrine maintains that we shall not inherit the 


The Appeal to History 245 

earth until Christ comes. The Puritans made 
a postmillennial blunder in presupposing mil¬ 
lennial conditions anteriour to the second 
advent of Christ. 

6. It was due to postmillennial principles 
that the madmen of Munster made their mon¬ 
strous mistake. The madmen of Munster may 
have called themselves millennarians, but they 
erred by trying to install the millennium pre¬ 
vious to the coming of Christ. They proclaimed 
John of Leydon, who had seventeen wives, as 
king of the whole earth. He appointed twelve 
dukes under him to rule the world and inau¬ 
gurate the millennium. They were subdued by 
civil authority. The postmillennialists have 
unjustly identified the madmen of Munster with 
premillennialists. But the Munster fanatics 
made their colossal mistake on postmillennial 
principles; i. e., the inauguration of the mil¬ 
lennium previous to the coming jf Christ. The 
very word premillennial indicates that Christ 
comes first, or before the millennium. The 
postmillennialists, on the other hand, insist that 
the millennium precedes the coming of Christ. 
Now, on which side of the proposition did the 
madmen of Munster make their colossal mis¬ 
take? Did they expect Christ to come before 
the millennium was inaugurated, or did they 
try to institute the millennium before Christ 
comes? Be it known, therefore, that the post¬ 
millennialists cannot palm the madmen of Mun- 


<• V 


246 PoshnUienniaSism ana The * kgi.Ck* 

stei" off entirely on the premillennial side of 
the. question. : 

7. John Alexander Dowie made hii fatal 
mistake on postmillennial principles. He doubt¬ 
less claimed to be a premillennialish But 
practically speaking, he made the gigantic effort 
to millennialize Zion City. He enaeayor&drilQ 
institute millennial conditions in Zion City 
previous to the coming of Christ. ; The true 
premillennial position does not demand one 
square mile of territory where millennial con¬ 
ditions prevail previous to the- coming or 
Christ. Grant that Dowie, in the common 
acceptation of the term, was a premillennialist, 
vet it cannot be denied, that he made hisunonu- 

Z) 7 E FI c v . c (* fJTiL 

mental mistake on postmillennial principles— 
the attempted realization of millennial condir 
tions previous to the coming of Christ. ; < 

8. The Mormons tried to ec-rner and coloiife 

millennial conditions at Salt Lake, Utah. The 
Mormons might claim- that they ape premiUen- 
niahsts, But they have made, In a measure, 
the same postmillennial blunder tnatmmany 
other cults have made. They are not content 
to wait till Christ comes to reign, but have 
endeavored to sway the scepter of dominion 
previous to His appearing. U 

It must not be inferred from what has been 
said that the premillennialists' believe in remain¬ 
ing idle and inactive till our Lord’s return. The 
church - must occupy till He comes. :• We are 


'rise i 

■j/L't 


"'jH'.ics 




247 


peal to History 

# 

admonished to exhort one another the more as 
we see the day approaching. We must do all 
we can to hasten the day of this glorious 
appearing. We must carry the gospel to tne 
whole world, not merely as a witness, but as 
the power of God unto salvation to all who 
believe. Whether they accept or reject depends 
upon the free moral agency of men. The gospel 
is adequate, but God does not burglarize the 
human heart nor break down the human will 
But after all is said and done, we cannot grow, 
evolve, make of manufacture the millennium. 
We cannot inaugurate or institute the millen¬ 
nium by education, legislation or evangeliza¬ 
tion. We cannot precipitate it by aiiy external 
force, wild fire or fanaticism. Nor can we 
transform the outer world of nature into mil¬ 
lennial beauty by the scientific touch of modern 
civilization. 

‘ Hoary’ Confessions and Historic Creeds. 

Posl'millennialists claim that premiliennialism 
was never the ecumenical faith of the church 
and that* it never entered as an article into any 
of the creeds; that it was rejected by the ruling 
authorities and opposed by the reformers. 
Professor Rail says: “The Apostles’ Creed 
seems- clearly to exclude premiliennialism by its 
phrase,-‘from thence he shall come to judge 
the quick and the dead.’ The Niceiie Creed 
is a little more explicit. ‘He shall come again 
with glory to judge both the quick and the 



24S Postmillesinialism and The Higher Critic* 

dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.’ The 
Athanasian Creed joins unmistakably a general 
resurrection and final judgment with his re¬ 
turn. ” (Modern Premillenfriialism p. 105). 
He quotes the Augsburg Confession. “They 
condemn others also who now scatter Jewish 
opinions, that, before the resurrection of the 
dead, the godly shall occupy the kingdom of 
the world, the wicked being everywhere sup¬ 
pressed/' He continues:- “The Westminster 
Confession directly excludes premillennialism 
by declaring that there shall be one judgment 
day, in which ‘all persons, that have lived upon 
the earth, shall appear before the tribunal of 
Christ, to give account of their thoughts, words 
and deeds; 'and to receive according to what 
they have done in the body, whether good or 
evil.” “The Thirty-nine Articles of the Angli¬ 
can Church,” he states, “indicate the position 
taken by affirming the Athanasian Creed.” 
(“Modern Premillennialism,” p. 106 .) Professor 
Rail, therefore, maintains that all the great 
creeds of Christendom either exclude, reject 
or oppose premillennialism. But Here, as in 
many other instances, Rail is incorrect. Daniel 
Whitby, the father of modern postmillennialism, 
concedes that premillennialism was received 
by this famous .Council. The third beatitude, 
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit 
the earth,” was quoted by the Councl in sup¬ 
port of the premillennial view. In regard to 


249 


1 he Appeal to History 

the Augsburg Confession (1530), it repudiates 
postmillennialism and at the same time con¬ 
demns, not pure premillennialism, but the fanat¬ 
ical views of the Anabaptists— that before the 
resurrection of the dead the godly shall occupy 
the kingdom of the world. The true premil- 
lennial position is just the reverse of this— 
after the resurrection of the just, the righteous 
shall reign with Christ on the earth. (Rev. 5: 
10.) Philip Melancthon, who wrote the Augs¬ 
burg Confession, ought to be a better judge of 
what it teaches than Professor Rail. In ex¬ 
planation of the Seventeenth Article, he says: 
‘The church in this life is never to attain to a 
position of universal triumph and prosperity, 
but is to remain depressed, and subject to afflic¬ 
tions and adversities, until the time of the 
resurrection of the dead.” Rail is again routed 
in regard to Martin Luther’s attitude on the 
millennial question. Luther stoutly opposed 
postmillennialism. In his comment on John 

10: 16, he declares: “Some, in explaining this 
* 

passage, say that before the latter days, the 
whole world shall become Christian. This is 
a falsehood forged by Satan, that he might 
darken sound doctrine, that we might not 
rightly understand it. Beware, therefore, of 
this delusion.” It seems that Luther had too 
much historic sense to accept the postmillennial 
delusion! 


250 Fo®tms!IsnrJaliesii End The.--Higher Critic# 

Dr. J. A. Seiss says: “Upon these, considera¬ 
tions, we hold it to be a mistake to say that 
chiliasm of all forms has been rejected by the 
Augsburg Confession. It s a mere assxiznpton, 
made without proper discrimination jn. the first 
place, and repeated by the enemies of miller 
na-rian doctrine without proper scrutiny.” 


i) 


■ ?•» 


•)! S I 


7 0 '' 


Church History 

on 1 no t -? i n. ■ 




•'t ©r;3 'ofk 


ji >■( 


The appeal has.been.made to history,;and to 
history we now. apply. Dr. Mains has tried 
to make it appear that history is against pre~ 
rnillennialism. We have seen that history has 
not always been for postmillennialisiii. >;ifBut 
now we come to consider not so much the 
history against this view or the history fer 
that vie\v> but the history d the great millennial 
problem. Gibbon, in the “Decline, and Fall of 
the Roman Empire,” says concerning . the 
ancient and popular doctrine of the millennium 
“It appears to have been the reigning, sentiment 
of all orthodox believers Mosheim, the 
church historian, says:, “The prevailing opinion 
that Christ was to come and reign : a thousand 


V a 

•s 

o 


ears among men before the final dissolution 
f the world had met with no opposition until 


H’fb time of Orfcen.” Philip Schaff, the eminent 
ecclesiastical historian, says that chiliasm was 


the striking point in the eschatology of the 


ante-Nicene age.. Bishop aNewtom, eminent 
writer on prophecy, declares: “The doctrine 


-alihD 'Ibe:Appeal^,H5st<Mry :j ^i^ ■ 2SJ.: 

of the- millennium; was generally believed. in. the 
first three' and purest,.ages*:’ ;.John.Lesley,: 
thfe father and founder, o.f .Methodism, .speaks 
of . the views .Qf ffee.-Apostolic .Fathers., as l com*. 
taming.../‘the pure,..aineorruptMi;dQetrine of 
Christ. 57 .H; ; G. Shimeull speaks., of; the primi-. 
tiye fathers of that purest ag.e:,of the church, 
immediately Mlo.y/mg the apostles-rind declares 
theyhY/jejre: rallepre&utonialists‘ up till, the time) 
thah.Cldment .ofAlexandria. and. Origan;. who: 
adopted the:.allegchical.meth 0 d ot .interpreting 
the; Seffptures-is nhm.yj ;; C LI now am:! 5 

The Far-Filing Line of' Preinilieniiialists. ‘ 

» t 

There is a long and illustrious line of p.re- 

• v ' 

millennialists, reaching back through the remote 
depths of antiquity to the time of the apostles 
and coming down even to our own day and 
age of the world. 'They reach across the broad 
stretch' of nineteen centuries, and represent the 
deepest spirituality and the ripest .scholarship 

• * 11 fr * * < !••<?; . i . 5 . > ' L \ v ''..’I-. C ; •' 

of the wo'rld. 

1v. >•; jl .uf Jf 1 fa • v ;: • > ‘ .■ v.„ 1 — s -V f ! 1 * 1 1 \ /l * • '. - 1 . i *-*' ^ 1 -> 

. 1. Barnabas, the Son of Consolation, the 
co-worker and companion of Paul, left his 
testimony in favor of preniillennialism. 

2. Clement of Rcrne ? mentoned in Phil 4: 3 
as one whose name is in the Book, of Life. 

. i Jt: i i’-f Up'M ~>‘ i> •■‘■I--. ? > ■- 1 * ' 

3. Hermes, mentioned in Romans 14; 14* 
wrote fjie ‘'Shepherd” about 100 A.. D. 

■4.' Igsiciius Antioch, bishop and faithful 
martyr. 


. i Fj, t u 



252 Pcstmillennialiam and Th$ Higher Critics 

5. Polycarp, who died at the matryr’s stake. 
He was the disciple of John. 

6. Papias, companion of Polycarp. He de¬ 
clared that “the Kingdom of Christ will be 
established visibly in the earth.” The postmil- 
ennialists ridicule Papias’ view as to millennial 
fruitage—the excessive clusters of grapes. If 
Rail and the professors of the University of 
Chicago are going to make the millennium, 
let them try their hand on the grape industry 
and see if they can cope with Papias. He said 
there would be a certain millennium after the 
resurrection of the dead. 

7. Theophilns cf Antioch, first Christian his¬ 
torian of Old Testament annals. 

8. Justin Martyr, Greek philosopher, con¬ 
verted to Christianity. A great apologst. A 
man of eminent piety and learning, according 
to Mosheim. In his dialogue with Trypho, the 
Jew, he says: “I and as many as are orthodox 
Christians do acknowledge that there shall be 
a resurrection of the body, and a residence of 
a thousand years in Jerusalem rebuilt, adorned 
and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel, Isiah 
and others do unanimously attest.” 

9. henaeus, Bishop of Lyons. He was the 
disciple of Polycarp, the pupil of the Apostle 
John. He wrote five books on the heresies 
of the times, which Mosheim calls “a splendid 
monument of antiquity.” Theodoret called him 
“the light of the Western Church.” Irenaeus 


The Appeal io History 2&3 

writes “of the times of the kingdom, when the 
righteous shall hear rule upon their rising from 
the dead.” 

10. Turtullian. He was born in Carthage, 
Africa, and flourished as a writer between A. D. 
196-2 18. John Wesley considered him one 
of the most eminent Christians of that age. 
He said: “We confess that a kingdom is prom¬ 
ised on earth before that in heaven, but in 
another state, namely, after the resurrection.” 

1 1. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage. He main¬ 
tained the premillennial theory. 

12. Commcdianus (2 50 A. D.), a Christian 
historian. He was an ardent cniliast. 

13. Melito, B'shcp of Sardis. He was a con¬ 
temporary with Justin Martyr and was a man 
of pre-eminent piety and eloquence. He wrote 
a treatise on the Apocalypse. Jerome affirms 
that he was a decided millenarian. 

14. Methodius, Bishop of Alympus. He flour¬ 
ished between A. D. 260-312. Dr. Daniel 
Whitby, prominent postmillennialist, admits 
that “Methodius held to a pm-e millennium, free 
from everything sensual.” Neander says he 
was a chliast. 

15. Lactantius, the most learned of the Latin 
Fathers, called the “Christian Cicero.” Pro¬ 
fessor Stuart says that Lactantius was a “zealous 
chiliast.” Lactantius was the instructor of 
Crispus, the son of Constantine the Great. 


254 PcstmiUenaiaUam_&ml Tha Higher Critics 

We have thus far mentioned fifteen'-of the 

-* • * - * * * - <1 <** • wl/j • • •' - ... .7 T . m 

Chrstian fathers who valiantly fought for the 
premillennial faith once for all delivered .to 
the saints. But we have now come to the 
time when this apostolic, evangelical doctrine 
encountered great opposition. Up to this 
period it was practically the ecumenical faith of 
the Catholic or universal church. But difficul- 



lnterpretatlon under the leadership of CTeifienf 
and Origen. -Alexandria -was a regular second 
Athens, a center of influence and a seat of 
learning. Then, as now. scholarship"' took- th# 
initiative in the new field of theological specu¬ 


lation'. Clement and Origan' construed the Bible 
allegorically and fancifully. They could alle¬ 
gorize, Jerusalemize and spiritualize away the 
plain, common seme meaning of the Scrip¬ 
tures. They Platbnized Christianity. Martin 


Luther condemned this method of interpreta¬ 
tion. He declared that "Origen, with Jerome 
and similar of the fathers, are to be avoided, 

with the whole Alexandrian School.” 


2. The Union of Church and State uissfer the 
rc-ign of Constantine ths Great* Under Constan¬ 
tine tire Christian religion was lifted front the 
catacombs to'the throne of the Caesars. If was* 


legalized and popularized. This unparalleled 
change in the course of events produced a' won¬ 
derful effect upon the Christian church. At first 


/: 


Tha Appeal to History 


• j:.: » i 


255 


$iriit it seemed that all was favorable and fortu- 

: . m ' {'• i • ■ • • 1 • •’ 1 • • ; " • ■ ' T * a< < • > 

nate. The pagan persecutions had ceased. The 
moral atmosphere of the world was cleared. Hu¬ 
man life was protected. Christianity had tri¬ 
umphed and was new the official religion of. the 
great Roman Empire. The entire world was 
Practically won and the predicted millennium 
was at hand. 3. Jerome and Augustine exerted 
their influence against premillennialism. Je¬ 
rome was born of wealth, noted for learning, 
author of the Vulgate translation, secretary to 
Pope Damasus and a monastic. He was;, known 
as the “unmerciful scoffer” at millenarianism. 
The Council of Rome under Pope Damasus, in 
3 73, formally denounced chili asm. Augustine, 
Bishop of Hippo, adopted the premillennial 
theory in his earlier days, but rejected it after¬ 
wards. He stood for the supremacy of Rome, 
unchristianized all who were not Roman Catho- 

lies and advocated persecution. J. F. Silver 

* 

says: “We have seen that Rome laid almost 
every plank .in the platform of postmillennial- 
jsm.” (“Our Lord’s Return,” p 113 ) Burnet 
says; “Rome always had an evil eye on the 
millennium.” Dr. J. A. Siess says premillen¬ 
nialism “fell only as.popery rose.” (“The Last 
Times,” p. 246.) When the church became 
Romanized it relegated premillennialism to the 
background. Rome was now in a position to 
inaugurate her own millennium. Everything 

was favorable, (a) “Pessimistic” premillen- 


256 Postmiilennialism and The Higher Critics 

nialism was officially condemned; (b) Opti¬ 
mism prevailed; (c) scholarship was on the 
side of postmillennialism; (d) literal interpre¬ 
tation of the Scriptures was hissed off the stage; 
(e) the church was organized; (0 .the Roman 
Empire was now 'a Christian state. Thus post- 
millennial Rome had all things cocked and 
primed and prepared for a home-made mil¬ 
lennium, previous to the personal coming of 
Christ. How did it come out? Lo, and behold, 
the devil’s millennium, the Dark Ages, came 
instead of the Lord’s millennium! This was the 
biggest blunder of the ages! Hew can modern 
postmillenialists in the face of these facts talk 
about premillennialism being unhistoricel? But 
let us continue our list of premillennialists: 

16. Philip Melancthon, the learned co-laborer 
of Martin Luther. 

17. Ridley, Bishop of London, and martyr 
for the faith. 

18. John Knox of Scotland was a premillen- 
nialist. 

19. Thomas Chalmers, the eloquent Scotch 
divine, who characterized Methodism as Chris¬ 
tianity in earnest, was a chiliast. 

20. Sir Isaac Newton, the great philosopher. 
He claimed that nearly every prophecy in the 
Old Testament related to Christ’s second 
coming. 

21. John Milion, the author of “Paradise 
Lost,” is among the number. 


Hie Appeal to History 2&T 

2 2. Alexander Pope, the poet, broke away 
from Rome enough to endorse the premil- 
lennial view. 

23. Augustus Tcpiady, author of the im¬ 
mortal song, “Rock of Ages,” was straight on 
the premillennial doctrine. 

24. John Fletcher, the great Methodist po¬ 
lemic, was a premillennialist. 

2 5. Horatius Bonar, great writer and hymn- 
ologist. 

26. Reginald Hebar, author of the song, 
“Holy, Holy, Holy,” was also a chiliast. 

2 7. George Whitefield, one of the most elo¬ 
quent preachers of the world. 

2 8. Robert Hall, the celebrated Baptist 
preacher. 

29. Charles H. Spurgeon, one of the greatest 
Baptist preachers the world ever knew, was an 
earnest premillennialist. 

30. Lorenzo Dow, the unique camp meeting 
preacher, who held the first camp meeting in 
New England.' 

3 1. D. L. Moody, possibly the greatest evan¬ 
gelist of modern times, who preached to fifty 
million people, was premillennial in his view. 

32. Dr. T. De Witt Talmage, the great 
Brooklyn divine, was orthodox on the second 
coming. 

33. Joseph Alleine, author of “Alleine’s 
Alarm.” 


£5§ Paesd The *iigk«ar Cn*sss 


34. John B-usyan, the immortal dreamer and 
author of ‘‘Pilgrim’s Progress/’ 

35. Richard Baxter, author of “Stints* 
Rest.” 


36. Increase Mather, father ©f American lit¬ 
erature and president of Harvard. 

37. Go&tcn Mather, terror t* witcfcffr*ft ssA 
author 383 works. 


38. Arohbiahaga Jsm*s Usher* ike l*ftrn«£ an4 

famous Irish chrenologisi 

39. Mathew Henry, the great Calv'mii&e 
commentator. 


40. Dsan Alford, the noted Greek, scholar. 

41. Dr. Tregellas, also a celebrated Greek 
exegete. 

4 2. Moees Stuesrt, great scholar and profes¬ 
sor of Sacred Literature at Andover nearly f@rty 


years. 

4 3. George Muller, the her® of faith. 

44. J. Hudson Taylor, the famous mission¬ 
ary. 

45. Joseph A. Sesss, author, editor, preacher 
and lecturer. 


46. Bishop Thomas NewtoR, great writer on 
prophecies. 


. 47. Dr. Thomas Coke, the first Protestant 
bishop of the new world. 

48. Dr. James M. Gray, great Bible teacher. 


49. Wilbur Chapman, learned 
and founder of “Mother’s Day.” 
4est Marginal! said ef him, “He w 


evangelist 
Vice-Presi- 
as a drs&n- 


Fh* Afjpeai t© History 2@9 

guished Presbyterian, a high patriot and a great 
Christian. - ” 

50. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism. 
We have reserved his name to the last. The 
Methodist postmillennialists fight hard for Wes¬ 
ley. But he was more premillennial than post- 
millennial in his view. Professor Rail tries 
his utmost to land Wesley for the postmilltn- 
nialists, but fails. John Wesley, it is true, said 
some things in a number of his sermons which 
seemed to have the postmillcnnial ring. But 
Wesley's endorsement of Thomas Hartley's 
book, “Paradise Restored," is premillennial 
beyond peradventure. Luke Tyerman, who 
wrote what is considered oie of the best 
biographies of Wesley, said: “Wesley, like his 
father before him, was a millenarian, a believer 
in the second advent of Christ to reign on 
earth, visibly and -gloriously, for & thousand 
years." Will Professor Rail accept Wesley's 
view ©n the Inspiration of the Scriptures mi 
on Christian Perfection? 

We challenge the modern postmilleanUHsts 
to give fifty names ef prominent postmiilen- 
nialists that will compare witk the names wt 
have recited from the time of the apostles dov/n 
to the present day. It has been protested by 
postmillennialists that the scholars on our list 
are dead. They call for modern scholars. But 
Eichhorn, De Wette, Hupfield, Graf, Kuenen, 
Ewald and Wellkausen are all dead. Why in 


2SO Fcs&mUenmaikm, and The Higher Critics 

the present-day critics accept their views on 
higher criticism? The dead scholars of Ger¬ 
many rule the modern American critics in our 
colleges and universities. But maybe Professor 
Rail and Professor Snowden prefer the fifty- 
five hundred scientists mentioned by Professor 
J. H. Lueba, of Bryn Mawr, two-thirds of whom 
do not believe in a personal God and personal 
immortality. 

The future, not the past, will finally settle 
the dispute between the premillennialists and 
postmillennialists. if the entire world becomes 
converted and millennial conditions supervene 
before Christ comes, then, and not till then, can 
history record the fact that the millennium has 
arrived according to the postmillennial pro¬ 
gram. If, on the other hand, Christ comes 
before the entire world is converted and sepa¬ 
rates the tares from the wheat, the goats from 
the sheep, and destroys the man of sin with 
the brightness of His coming (the epiphany 
of his po-ousia) and inaugurates His reign on 
the earth, then, and not till then, can history 
record the fact that the millennium has been 
instituted according To the premillennial pro¬ 
gram. Since the dictum of science cannot 
settle the question, and since we have to wait 
for the data of history, what shall we do in the 
meantime? The modern practical postmillen¬ 
nialists tell us to pitch in and improve the 
present and quit speculating on the future. 


Tha Appeal to History 261 

But as no philosopher is satisfied with unana¬ 
lyzed ideas, so no Christian is satisfied with an 
absolutely unknown future. Not to know the 
past is to remain a child; not to know the 
present is to be a dullard; and not to take some 
note of the future is to be a fool. There is a 
supply for every legitimate demand. There is 
the atmosphere for the wing of the eagle, the 
stream of water for the fin of the fish, the 
sunnier clime to meet the migratory instinct 
of the bird of passage. The desire to know 
something about the future is innate and uni¬ 
versal. God has met this legitimate desire and 
craving of the immortal mind, not with history 
or science, but with the sure word of prophecy. 
Hence the interest in the great afterward is not 
a mere idle speculation nor a golden dream, 
but the natural, normal, legitimate longing 
of the immortal soul made in the image of God. 
Let no one, therefore, despise the study of 
prophecy. The correct solution of the millen¬ 
nial problem, therefore, depends not upon his¬ 
tory, but upon the proper interpretation of 
prophecy. ‘'Blessed is he that readeth, and 
they that hear the words of this prophecy.” 
(Rev. 1:3.) 

The postmillennalists appeal to history, 
while the premillennialists appeal to prophecy. 
The former is premature. The latter is proper 
and appropriate. 


ANDRIW JOHNSON. 


CHAPTER XII. 


“The Second Coming of Christ ,’’ by Bishop 

S. M. Merrill. 

This book, as one would naturally expect, 
is well written. In some of his arguments we 
most heartily concur. He is reasonable in his 
positions and brotherly in spirit. We fully 
appreciate his earnest plea for the full authority 
of the Bible as an inspired book, as the final 
arbiter of all controversies. He shows none 
of the critical spirit so common with many 
of the postmillennial advocates. Of this we 
are glad; for this we commend him. 

We feel it well to give a few extracts from 
the bishop in answer to those who say that the 
second coming of the Lord was accomplished 
in a figurative manner at the destruction of 
Jerusalem, at the death of individual saints, or 
in the various plagues, wars and earthquakes 
that have come upon the earth. 

We commend the following: 

“The second coming of Christ is His coming 
into the sight of men on earth so that His 
presence may be known and felt as sensibly 'as 
when He lived in Galilee or v/alked in Judea.” 

“His second coming is therefore to be a reve¬ 
lation of His personal glory, and of His one¬ 
ness with the Father and His royal prerogative 
as King of kings and Lord of lords. In this 
revelation He will bring with Him the holy 
angels, and all His saints.” 


“The Second Coming of Christ” 


263 


“We agree with them (the premillennialists) 
that the literal sense of the Scriptures is to be 
accepted when it does not lead to absurdities 
or contradictions, or to doctrines out of har¬ 
mony with the general current of Biblical 
truth.” 

These words are sane, reverent and satisfy¬ 
ing. 

But we shall quote yet further from the 
bishop: “He shall come as He went. He 
went up personally, bodily, literally, visibly; 
He went up in a cloud with the angels. And 
He shall so come in like manner. He must, 
therefore, come personally, bodily, literally, 
visibly; He must come in a cloud with the 
angels.” in defining the word parousia, Bishop 
Merrill says: “This word, which so plainly 
expresses a literal, personal coming or presence, 
is used in a multitude of instances with refer¬ 
ence to the coming of Christ; and in such 
relations that no ‘figurative,' or even spiritual, 
manfestation can possibly be meant.” 

The word epiphaneia is likewise used to 
denote the personal appearance of our Lord 
in His second coming. The lexicographers 
define it: “An appearance, show, display, 
grandeur, splendor.” In its classical use, it 
applies to the invisible divinities that become 
visible. In the New Testament it expresses the 
visibility of the Son of God, when He comes 
forth from the Father so as to be seen of 


264 PotbrJkn&talism and Tbs Higher Crifcica 

men. In speaking of the “appearing” of Jesus 
in 2 Tim. 1:10 and Titus 2:13, he says: 
“This epiphany is necessarily personal and 
visible.” 

One more quotation will suffice: “In every 
variety of form, personal coming is expressed, 
and personal actions are attributed to Him 
when He comes. If there be no personal 
advent in the future, the language of the New 
Testament is not only incomprehensible, but 
misleading.” 4 

It is refreshing to find a postmillennialist 
who so fairly represents the personal return ef 
our Lord; one who does not seek to spiritualize 
away the whole question. The bishop does not 
compromise with those who thus trifle with a 
serious and scriptural subject. 

Replying to those of the preterist school, 
such as Goff, Campbell and Urmy, who make 
the return of the Lord a thing of the past, or 
a figurative and unknown event, the bishop 
says: “A 'figurative’ coming of Christ is no 
coming at all. Those who believe in such a 
'coming’ at the destruction of Jerusalem impose 
upon themselves the sound of words without 
meaning. If the phrase, a ‘figurative coming,’ 
have any meaning, it fails to reach our per cep- 

<L 


*These extracts, pages 9, 10, 12. 3 7, 40, 41 
and 44. 



‘‘Ihs Second Coming of CJariaC** 


2 m 


tion. Certainly those who use it intend to say 
that Christ Himself did not oome in person, 
and if He did not come in person as the Son 
of man He did not come at all. A figurative 
advent is a myth.” In speaking of the so-called 
figurative coming at the destruction of Jerusa¬ 
lem, the bishop utterly rules it out, and says: 
'‘There was no coming of Christ at the destruc¬ 
tion of Jerusalem of any kind, whether literal, 
figurative, spiritual, or judicial. None hut 
‘false Christs’ were to be expected at that time” 
(pp. 54-55). 

These quotations have been drawn out some¬ 
what at length as an antidote to the fallacies 
of some men whom we review In other page 
The foolishness if not wickedness of trying i® 
impose upon thinking Bible students that fig¬ 
ment of an unbalanced imagination whero.. 
men seek to make us believe that Jesus re¬ 
turned in judgment day power and glory near 
the end of the first century must be manifes 
to all. We are glad to array the bishop in 
these clear and pointed utterances against the. 
class of writers whom he thus so thoroughly 
answers. 

But there are other points upon which the 
bishop does not throw much light, and in the 
treatment of which he is not so fortunate. On 
a few' points especially he does not seem to 
catch the vision. With all that he has said, 
he himself falls into the mistake of making at 


268 Pcstmilienniailsm and Ihe Higher Critics 

least two comings of our Lord. He makes the 
“coming of the Son of man in His kingdom” 
and “His coming in the clouds with the saints 
and angels in power and great glory” to be 
two distinct events. He 'attempts to show that 
the first of these occurred at Pentecost, while 
the second is to occur at the end of the present 
age. He says the people did expect a speedy 
coming of the King, and asks, “Was it the 
legitimate result of the preaching of Christ 
and His disciples; or was it a misapprehension 
of their utterances?” Then he shows that the 
people had false notions about the kingdom that 
our Lord was to establish. He says that in 
order to test out their erroneous views we 
limit the time of the coming of the kingdom 
to the lifetime of those then living. These 
important testimonies are the following: ‘Ver¬ 
ily, 1 say unto you, there be some standing here 
which shall not taste of death, till they see the 
Sen of man coming in his kingdom.’ ” He 
then quotes the parallel passages from Mark 
and Luke, the above being taken from Matthew. 
In commenting on the passage from each of 
the three synoptic gospels, he says: “These 
are parallel, and the slight variations in the 
words assist us in gathering the meaning. The 
‘coming of the^ Son of man m his kingdom,* 
‘the coming of the kingdom of God with 

power,’ and ‘seeing the kingdom of God,’ all 
refer to the same general occurrence, the setting 


“The Second Coming of ChrFSL ,> 


267 


up of God’s kingdom on the earth. This is the 
coming of the kingdom for which the disciples 
were taught to pray. It means something that 
was near at hand” (pp. 20-21). "He then lo¬ 
cates the fulfillment of this “setting up of the 
kingdom” at Pentecost. 

We note the following errors in the above 
extract: (1) He loses sight of the fact that 
“the Son of man” was to come visibly; (2) 
not only was He to be seen, but also His king¬ 
dom; (3) there can be no possible distinction 
between the coming in His kingdom and in 
the clouds of heaven.* His kingdom and in 
clouds is mentioned in Luke 2 1:2 7, and He 
there says “that the kingdom is at hand“ (v. 
3 1). When He comes “in the clouds” He is 
to assemble and judge the nations. (Mat. 25: 
31, 32.) (4) It is as King that He returns and 
begins the judgment of His “servants” and of 
His “enemies.” (Luke 19.) (5) We have 

shown elsewhere that the passages based on 
Matthew 16: 28 were fulfilled at the transfigu¬ 
ration. See this in our comments on Goff. 
We need not enlarge on this point here. (6) 
If the daily prayer, “Thy kingdom come,” was 
answered and fulfilled at Pentecost, then it 
ceased to be a subject of our petitions, and 
hence has ever since been out of date. 


*Save the sample on the “Mount of Trans¬ 
figuration.” 



PostraillennUiksn and Thts Higher Critics 

Bishop Merrill, in discussing the twentieth 
chapter of Revelation, asks why only martyrs 
are included in this “first resurrection.” The 
answer is plain. The bride of the Lamb is com¬ 
posed of the risen saints and of all living 
saints who were caught up at the rapture. (1 
Thess. 4: 16-18; Rev. 19:6-8.) This rapture 
is followed by the great tribulation, during 
which the Beast, coming into world power, re¬ 
establishes the inquisition, slaughtering all who 
will not worship the image he erects. (Rev. 13.) 
These tribulation martyrs are an innumerable 
throng. A picture of them may be seen in 
Revelation 7:9-14. They are not rapture 
saints caught up to meet the Lord at His 
appearing. They were not then saints, but were 
saved in the tribulation because they refused to 
worship the image the Beast set up. This is 
called the “first resurrection” to distinguish it 
from the final resurrection of “the rest of the 
dead.” It is, in fact, the finishing or culmina¬ 
tion of the first resurrection, which began, at 
the appearing of Jesus for His ready ones, 
before the breaking of the tribulation over the 
world. 

The bishop makes the same mistake I have 
found in so many 'other writers. Observe, 
the following: “The premillennial advent 
theory is based entirely on a Scripture which 
is acknowledged by all to be very obscure, 
in addition to being found in the Book of 


“Tha Second Coming of Christ” 269 

Revelation, in the midst of symbols extremely 
difficult of explanation and application”* 

(p. 156), 


*What are the symbols and obscurities of 
Revelation 20? I see none. It is a simple, 
straight-forward portrayal of things to be in 
connection with our Lord’s return: (a) HU 
marriage and wedding supper (19:5-8); (,b) 
His personal appearing on the white horse (19:. 
11-14) ; (c) His title, “King of kings” (*9: 
16) ; (d) the tribulation announced by an angel 
in the sun (19: 17, 18); (e) the capture of 
the beast and the false prophet (20) ; (f) the 
incarceration of Satan (20:1-3); (g) the 

raising and crowning of the tribulation mar¬ 
tyrs (20:4); (h) the distinction between the 
first and second resurrections. (20:5-6) -; (i) 
the loosing of Satan for a season (20:7) ; (j) 
the resulting apostasy (20: 8) ; (k) the rebels 
destroyed by fire (20:9) ; (1) Satan east into 

hell (20: 10) ; (m) great white throne of judg¬ 
ment of all good and bad not in first resur- 
ection (20:11-15); (n) new heaven and new 
earth (20: 21-22). There is nothing obscure 
or contradictory here of any other prophecy. 
It is a plain description of judgment day events 
and their ordar. Any man who can read English 
should have no trouble with this. 

While it is true that the time measurement 
of one thousand years is to be found only in 



270 PofitmlUennialiaiKi and The Higher Critics 


the Apocalypse, it is not true that the doctrine 
of the personal reign of Jesus Christ on the 
earth under millennial conditions can be found 
only in this book. We give in these pages 
many illustrations of this statement. We show 
that Jesus is to reign as a man, in association 
with His risen and translated saints; and that 
this reign is over men who are yet in their 
bodies, possessed of carnal natures, subject to 
death, and liable even to perish in their sire*. 


Another remarkable error into which the 
good bishop falls is to be seen in the following 
words: “There is absolutely no intimation 
whatever in this celebrated passage of Script¬ 
ure (Rev. 20) that Christ descends from 
heaven at the beginning of this thousand years” 
(p. 160). 


We are surprised that so intelligent and so 
good a man as Bishop Merrill should allow 
himself to be betrayed into such an unguarded 
utterance. The nineteenth chapter, just pre¬ 
ceding the picture of the millennium to which 
he refers, is altogether taken up with the 
glorious, majestic, personal corning of our Lord 
Jesus. He rides forth at the head of the armies 
celestial and launches His victorious campaign 
against the hordes of the wicked. This culmi¬ 
nates in the absolute overthrow of the “triple 

entente” of Hell, the Beast and the False 
Prophet being cast together into the lake of 


“Tht* Socemcl Cooa&£g ©f Christ” 271 

&re, while Satan Ls imprisoned for the millen¬ 
nial period. 

Speaking of tire judgment ol ail the dead 


at the ciose of the millennium, the bishop says: 
“There is no reason for opening* the ‘Book of 
Life’ on that occasion if ail the righteous had 
been raised and crowned a thousand years, and 
if all the subjects of that resurrection and judg¬ 
ment were doomed to the ‘second death' ” 

i 

(p. 162). This is a remarkable divergence 
from fact. Who ever said that all in the res¬ 
urrection at the close of the millennium were 
doomed? They most certainly are not. This 
is the separating judgment, portrayed in Mat¬ 
thew 25 , as the division of the sheep from the 
goats. Multitudes of the good and the had 
will have died during the millennium (Isaiah 
65: 20) and all these are in the final resurrec¬ 
tion. Furthermore, since the purpose of the 
first resurrection is simply to bring forth those 
who through faithfulness have equipped them- 
selvas for positions of honor and rulership in 
She millennial kingdom, it is evident that many 
&f th« saved, but lower grade of Christians, 
will await that final resurrection and come up 
among that class called “the rest of the dead ” 

While professing himself a postmillennialist, 
the bishop admits the difficulties of his posi¬ 
tion. He says that to describe the condition 
of the world at the coming of Christ “is on® of 
tfct Eidst difficult tasks the expositor »f the 


272 Po@tmille££iials@i& and The Higher Critics 

Scriptures is called on to perforin” (p. 167). 

I cannot see why he should flad himself in 
any great dilemma upon this subject. The New 
Testament shows that wars, pestilences and 
famines continue to the end. It also shows 
that the tares grow with the wheat to the 
“consummation of the age.” It clearly teaches 
that Satan is “the god of the age,” the “prince 
ot the world.” Jesus testifies that His appear¬ 
ing in the clouds will be “immediately” preced¬ 
ed by the greatest of all tribulations. John 
shows that the infernal trinity, the Dragon, the 
Beast and the False Prophet, remain in full 
power, with their armies in fighting trim, right 
down to the very day and hour of our Lord's 
appearing in glory. (Rev. 19). Daniel shows 
(chap. 7) that the beastly power is perpet¬ 
uated in the spirit of persecution and blasphemy 
“ill the ancient of days shall come, and the 
saints take the kingdom.” He also shows 
us in his interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s 
dream that the last of the great world powers, 
completing the “times of the Gentiles,” is ter¬ 
minated by the stone crushing and grinding to 
power all earthly governments. 

There is not one single passage in the lids 
of the Bible that sets before us the establishment 
of the kingdom and the personal reign of Jesus 
in the earth as the result of a gradual develop¬ 
ment of the church to a point where the world 
passes out of sin gently and gloriously into 


“XL© Sacond Coming of Christ” 273 

universal holiness. The kingdom is always 
shown to come as a result of the outpoured 
wrath of God in such power that it crushes and 
overthrows all antagonistic forces. 

The Judgment. 

Bishop Merrill and other postmillennialists 
are insistent that when Jesus comes He’ will 
inaugurate the judgment. To this we agree 
without dissent. But may they not be mistaken 
in their views of the judgment. Many seem 
to think that the separation of the holy and 
the unholy, as in the Master’s picture of the 
shepherd dividing his sheep from the goats, is 
all there is to the great assize. They seem to 
think that the entire judgment will occupy but 
a few hours’ time. With this view we cannot 
agree. 

The great tribulation, in which the Armaged¬ 
don battle is -fought, and in which storms and 
hoods and pestilences sweep the world, is itself 
a phase of the judgment. (Isaiah 26 : 9, 19-21; 
Rev. 6:3-17; Ezek. 38:18-22.) 

The positions and emoluments accorded the 
faithful servants in the millennial kingdom are 
bestowed as a phase of the judgment. (Luke 
19:* 11-25.) The millennium is also a part of 
the judgment, it is then that the saints judge 
the world. (1 Cor. 6:2.) This is the judgment 
of the living. (2 Tm. 4: 1.) It is simply an 
administrative judgment, and does not of itself 
determine future destiny, save as the formation 


274 Poetm^llKinMaM H%»er Qriit#a 


of character does this. Moses judged Israel, 
as the saints will judge the world. This judg¬ 
ment occupies the period of one thousand years 
(Rev. 20:2-6.) After the judgment of the 
living, Satan’s doom is sealed, he being cast into 
the lake of fire. This is followed by the judg¬ 
ment of all the remaining dead, good and bad, 
great and small, and the winding up of th« 
whole probationary system. Henceforth the 
world will exist as it was begun at creation. 
It will be a beautiful, holy, happy world, and 
will continue to be inhabited as the home of a 


sinless and multiplying race. 

The bishop gives us a beautiful picture of 
the millennium. Believing it correct (save that 
the binding and casting out of Satan U an assur¬ 
ed fact), I shall here present it to my readers. 
He says: ‘The imprisonment of Satan denotes 
curtailment of his power and increased re¬ 
straint upon his action, possibly to the extent 
of hindering his access to men in this world. 
This will be great gain in advantage for tire 
truth. It will give the gospel aecess to ike 
heart, impeded only by the opposition ©f the 
depravity within. Under such conditions, the 
relative power of the gospel will increase; the 
accumulated evidences of its divinity will shine 
out with a luster unseen before; and the quick¬ 
ened activities of Christian people will add to 
its efficiency as its conquests are extended and 
its yictovifii aauWiplied. Eui will every living 


“Tfco Second Coming Ckr;st w 


soul be converted? We dare not assume this. 
The universal spread of the gospel neither 
implies the removal of depravity from human 
nature nor the submission of every sinner to 
the sway of divine grace. Men will still -be 
descended from Adam, born after the flesh, 
and will need to be 'born again.’ But Christian 
intelligence will banish superstition. Idolatry 
will cease. Apostate churches will be reformed 
er destroyed. False religions will be over¬ 
thrown. Enlightened governments, permeated 
with Christian principles, will displace tyran¬ 
nies, aid religious liberty will become the 
heritage of all the nations. This much may be 
expected, and such a millennium will be inde¬ 
scribably glorious. But the old fight with inward 
corruption will go on. Carnality, and selfish¬ 
ness, and pride, arid love of the world, and love 
of power will struggle for the mastery, calling 
for watchfulness and self-denial, and keeping 
up all the conditions of a real probation. And 
some will be overborne. Infidelity will find 
votaries. Men of evil passions will love darkness 
rather than light. Such will shut their eyes 
to the brightest beams ©f the brightest day 
of gospel light, and when Satan is let loose 
they will be ready to join in the battle against 
the truth” (pp. 170, 171). 

The above is a very true picture of the millen¬ 
nium as set forth in many scriptures, notably 
Revelation 20 and Isaiah 65: 17-25. Human- 


276 Poatmillenmaliwn and THg Hgber * Critics 

ity will be dealt with in its carnal condition 
by a combination of law and grace. With Satan 
driven out of the earth and all his chief 
lieutenants overthrown, the world will enter 
upon a golden age of millennial blessedness. 

L. L. P. 






CHAPTER XII. 

The Kingdom of God. 

The word “king” occurs in the Bible more 
than twenty-six hundred times, “kingdom” oc¬ 
curs three hundred and seventy-seven times, 
always indicating rule, reign or dominion. 
It is a composite, comprehensive term, capable 
of a variety of applications. To argue that the 
kingdom is one, because the king is one, is a 
fallacy known in logic as a non sequiter. Be¬ 
cause a realm has but one king, it does not fol¬ 
low that the king has but one realm. This planet 
(the earth)has but one sun, yet the sun in the 
circle of the solar system, has eight planets. 
Alexander, the Great, informed Darius that the 
world could not endure two kings any more 
than it could endure two suns. While the world 
could not have two kings, a king, on the other 
hand, could have two worlds. It is true that 
the king is one and it is equally true that the 
realms over which he rules are many. Natural 
science does not attempt to crowd tli& entire 
world into one kingdom. It recognizes three 
kingdoms - the mineral kingdom, the vegetable 
kingdom and the animal kingdom. 

Henry C. Sheldon (post) in Studies in Re¬ 
cent Adventism (p.87) says:- “Intrinsically so 
comprehensive a theme as that of the kingdom 
is adapted to give rise to a variety of representa¬ 
tions, Viewed as to its source and central prin- 


27S Postm’ilennialbm cad The Higher Critics 

ciplc the kingdom is the realized moral rule of 
God; viewed as to the relations of its subjects, 
it is an ideal society. Regarded as a sum of 
spiritual goods which accompany or result from 
the realized rule of God, the kingdom can be 
spoken of as a treasure to be received; regarded 
as the domain where a divine and heavenly re¬ 
gime obtains, it can be described as a province 
or sphere to be entered. As already inaugura¬ 
ted and in process of development, the kingdom 
is here and now; as awaiting a great consum¬ 
mating stage, it is yet to come. All these as¬ 
pects are represented explicitly or implicitly in 
the teachings of Christ.” He speaks of the 
kingdom as here and now, already inaugurated 
and as to its consummation as yet to come. Geo 
P. Mains (post) in Premiliennialism falsely 
charges the Premillennialists as teaching that 
the kingdom is not yet inaugurated -“A kingdom 
which premillennialism teaches is something 
not yet inaugurated” (p. 101.) Let J. A. 
Seiss (prominent pre.) answer. “I do not, in¬ 
deed, deny that Christ now reigns in the hearts 
of his children, or that he exercises a providen¬ 
tial control over the affairs of the world.” (The 
Last Times, p. 132). “Its seat is in the heart; 
and unless first found in the heart it will never 

be found at all --But the fact that a man’s 

heart must be renewed and purified as a condi¬ 
tion of participation in the blessings of the med¬ 
iatorial kingdom, by no means proves that the 



279 


Use Kingdom of God. 


kingdom is not hereafter to take form, and be 
outwardly manifested in a triumphant personal 
reign of the Saviour in this world.” (p. 120). 
Geo. P. Mains admits that “Christ used the 
phrase embodying the term ‘kingdom’ in a var¬ 
iety of applications” (Prernillennialism p. 113). 
Bishop Merrill (post) misses the mark when he 
unlimbers his polemical gun at the premillen- 
nialists on the subject of the kingdom. “They, 
tell us that its establishment on earth belongs 
to the period of the Second Coming of Christ, 
and not to his first coming.” (“Second Com¬ 
ing of Christ.” p.19). Harris Franklin Rail 
(post) charges A. C. Gaebelein (pre.) as stat¬ 
ing in the Christian Workers Magazine, “We are 
not to preach the gospel of the kingdom or even 
to pray for its extension, for the kingdom cannot 
even commence until the Lord comes. The pro¬ 
gram for our age is merely the accomplishment 
of the number of God’s elect.” (Modern Pre- 
millennialism and the Christian Hope. p.l63). 


Prof. Rail reaches the conclusion that the 
kingdom has more than one meaning. “The 
thought of the Kingdom of God, as we have 
seen, was common to Jew and to Christian as 
the expression of the future hope, it was the 
rule of God which was to bring the good of men. 
But the phrase was capable of many meanings.” 
(p. 85). Dr. Nathaniel West (pre.) gives 
the following very classical and comprehensive 
definition of the kingdom: “In its fulness, it k 


2SO Pofttmlilexmialism and Tha Highar Crises 

past, it is present, it is come; it is inward and 
spiritual, existing now; it is outward and visible, 
yet to exist; it is heavenly; it is a kingdom of 
grace; it is a kingdom of glory; it is earthly; it 
is temporal; it is everlasting. In its forms 
it is above, it is below, and in its highest 
consummation is the realization of the will of 
God on earth as it is now realized in heaven; 
a consummation begun below, developed 
in the age to come and completed in 
the Eternal State.” J'. F. Silver (pre.) 
says: ‘in one place the kingdom signifies one 
thing. In another place the kingdom signifies 
another thing.” (p. 335). Prof. A. B. Bruce 
and Dr. J. H. Snowden, two other noted writers 
both admit that the kingdom as used in the 
Scripture represents four or five different con¬ 
ceptions. 

These leading authors speak of the differ¬ 
ent aspects, phases, varieties, applications, 
conceptions and representations of the king¬ 
dom. Now when we come across the word 
kingdom in the Bible how are we to ascertain 
which particular conception of the term is 
meant? For it is granted that the word 
cannot contain all these different phases 
of meaning everytime it is used and every¬ 
where it occurs. The time, the historical en¬ 
vironment and the connection in which it is 
used will help to determine the sense in 
which it is employed. Here is where science 


The Kingdom of God. 


281' 


(certified and classified knowledge) comes to 
our rescue. Scientific classification is the great 
safeguard against the confusion of terms. We 
can greatly clarify the subject at this particular 
point by classifying the different varieties of the 
kingdom. The Higher Critics loudly clamor for 
the application of science to the Scriptures, 
meaning thereby the application of the unscien¬ 
tific, unproved evolutionary hypothesis to the 
study of the Scriptures. To which we demur; 
we are not unwilling, -however, to follow the 
example of natural science, to which we have 
formally referred, and classify the various con¬ 
ceptions of the kingdom. If no one objects to 
the cosmical world being classified into the three 
kingdoms -mineral, vegetable and animal res¬ 
pectively, why should one object to a similar 
scientific classification of the realms over v/hich 
the King of Glory rules. We affirm that this is 
the only proper way to dispose of the question 
of the Kingdom of God. 

Just as there are five kinds of salvation 
taught in the Bible - temporal salvation (Acts 
27: 31) : typical salvation (1 Pet. 3:21) ; ini¬ 
tial salvation (Matt 1:12); full salvation 
(Heb. 7:25; 1 Thess. 2:13); final salvation 
(Matt. 24:13); there are five different king¬ 
doms recognized by the Scriptures. 

1. The Kingdom prescribed by sovereignty, 
providence and natural law. While this form 
#f divine rule may, in a certain sense, be class- 


2-32 Pcs&mSIenmaiism and Tha Higher Critics 


ified as a phase of the general universal king¬ 
dom, yet the Bible calls it a kingdom within 
itelf. 'Thy kingdom ruleth over all”. (Ps. 103 : 
19.) Let us denominate this kingdom, the 
overruling providential kingdom. God exer¬ 
cises a providential rulership over the affairs of 
the world. He holds the ocean in the hollow of 
his hands; he notes the sparrow’s fall; he writes 
his law on the tiny walls of the invisible atom; 
he “weaves the rainbow into a scarf and throws 
it over the shoulders of the dying storm;” “he 
hitches his car to the whirlwind and sweeps 
the howling sky,’’ he guides the planets 
through the silver seas of space; he opens his 
hands and satisfies the desire of every living 
creature. No wonder the noted Keplar, as 
he discovered the laws of the universe, could 
say: “O God, 1 think thy thoughts after thee.” 
in the words of Kipling’s “Recessional,” He 
is the God of the far-flung battle line, who 
holds dominion over palm and pine. 

The following quotations confirm what we 
have said concerning the providential king¬ 
dom: “The Most High ruleth in the kingdom 
of men and giveth it to whomsoever he will.” 
(Dan. 4:17,25). “O Lord of hosts, God of 
Israel, that dwellest between the cherub!ms, 
thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the 
kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven 
and earth.” (Isa. 37:16.) .Everything that 
lives and moves and has its being is brought 


The Kingdom d God, 

under the scepter of divine sovereignty. 
makes the wrath of man to praise him. The 
remainder of wrath he will restrain. We can 
see the footprints of Deity on the hilltops of 
history. God has wrenched empires from their 
hinges 'and turned the channels of nations. 
Man proposes, but Gcd disposes- “The king’s 
heart is in the hand of the ! ord and he turneth 
it whithersoever he will.” 

The form of divh.e rule embodying the provi¬ 
dential kingdom embraces a king, a realm, a 
government and subjects. God is the king, 
the world is the realm, all the inhabitants of 
earth are the subjects. This is the big king¬ 
dom. It includes the entire population of the 
world—good, bad and indifferent. No other 
kingdom on earth has such a large member¬ 
ship. It is not marked off by any sectarian 
lines or denominational boundaries. It is not 
Judaic, Christian, national, international nor 
racial. Broadly speaking, it is human. Every 
human being, regardless of previous condition, 
race, color or servitude, is a member of this 
kingdom. la the words of the immortal Dec¬ 
laration of Independence, “All men are created 
equal. They are endowed by their Creator 
with certain inalienable rights. Among these 
are life; liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” 

2. The church kingdom or the ecclesiastical 
kingdom. There are two extreme views in 
regard to the church and the kingdom. One 


284 Pofeimillcnmalkm and The Higher Critics 

maintains that the church and the kingdom are 
always identical. The other that they are never 
identical. Each is partly in the ngftt and both 
are in the wrong. There is a kingdom which 
is always identical with the church. There is 
another kingdom which is never identical with 
the church. The Providential Kingdom is cer¬ 
tainly not identical with the church. It all 
depends upon which kingdom one means. The 
kingdom we are now discussing is the church 
kingdom. Postmillennialists hold a very erro¬ 
neous view relative to the church and the king¬ 
dom. They affirm that the church is not 
identical with the kingdom, not as large as the 
kingdom, but that it forms the central part 
and is the chief agency of the kingdom. The 
fallacy of this position will appear as we pro¬ 
ceed in the discussion. 

In the following Scriptures the kingdom 
coincides with the church: “Again the king¬ 
dom of heaven is like unto a net, that was 
cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind; 
which when it was full they drew to the shore, 
and sat down and gathered the good into 
vessels, but cast the bad away. So shall it be 
at the end of the world.” (Matt. 13:47,48, 
49.) “The Son of man shall send forth his 
angels and they shall gather out of his king¬ 
dom all things that offend and them which 
do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace 
of fire. Then shall the righteous shine forth 


285 


The Kingdom of Cod. 

as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” 
(Matt. 13: 41, 42, 43-) “And I say unto you, 
that many shall come from the east and the 
west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and 
Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. 
But the children of the kingdom shall be cast 
into outer darkness.” (Matt. 8: 11, 12.) 

“Therefore I say unto you, the kingdom of 
God shall be taken from you and shall be 
given to a nation bringing forth the fruits 
thereof.” (Matt. 2 1:43). There is set forth 
in these verses a separate, distinct kingdom, 
differentiated from all others by certain special 
peculiarities and characteristics. It cannot be 
identified with the broad providential kingdom. 
For the latter was never taken away from the 
Jews and given to the Gentiles. It cannot be 
identified with the real inner spiritual kingdom, 
because it has both good and bad in it, while 
the inner spiritual kingdom contains only the 
good. It cannot be identified with the mil¬ 
lennial kingdom, for the latter was not taken 
from the Jews and given to another nation. 
It is still in the future.' The dragnet kingdom 
continues up till the end of the age, at which 
time the millennial kingdom is inaugurated. So 
the two cannot be the same. What kingdom 
then did Christ have in mind? Evidently the 
visible church. The church was founded in the 

house of Abraham. It was perpetuated down 
the centuries. God did not run a church two 


2BS PGstmiikfca&nv&ikm and i'ke O Hm 


thousand years and then blot it out and estab¬ 
lish a new one. There was no new church 
organized in the New Testament We do not 
have the old church under the old regime, nor 
a new church under a new regime, but the 
old church under a new regime. There was a 
new covenant, a new constitution, but the 
same old church remained intact. It was taken 


from the Jews and given to a nation bringing 
forth the fruit thereof. Many have come from 
the east and from the west, and have sat down 
in the church with Abraham, but the children 
of the kingdom (church) have been cast out. 
The gospel dragnet, in Us wide sweep, lias 
enclosed in the folds of the visible church the 
good and the bad. The fowls of the heaven, 
the elite of society, have made a bird rcosi 
out of the visible church-—the kingdom repre¬ 
sented by the mustard tree in the parable. 
(Matt. 13:31,32.) The kingdom mentioned 
in the former quotations answer* exactly to 
the visible church. It meets every require¬ 
ment. The earmarks are the same. S« in {he 
scientific classification of the subject we hate 
another form of the divine rule denominate I 
kingdom. We must, therefore, conclude that 
the church is, in a certain sense, a kingdom. 
In the organized visible church we have a 
realm, a government, -subjects aad a king. 

Christ, not the pope, is the authorized head 
©f the church, visible a*d invisible. There is, 


Tko KkiscSosn of God. S87 


beyond the shadow of a doubt, a church king¬ 
dom. 


3. The inner spiritual kingdom, Sheldon, 
Rail, Mains and Snowden, all of them promi¬ 
nent postmillenniallsts, have declared that the 
term kingdom is capable of a variety of repre¬ 
sentations @r applications. The many meanings 
of this- word that occurs three hundred and 
s*venty-$even times in the Old and New Testa¬ 
ments have not been exhausted. .We have 
already described two kingdoms—the provi¬ 
dential and the ecclesiastical. We now come 
to th« inner, moral, ethical or spiritual king¬ 
dom. it is the kingdom set up in the heart 
by the supernatural intervention of the Holy 
Spirit A new and growing dynasty of love 
inaugurated in the human soul by regeneration. 
This is the kingdom which Christ preached to 
Nicodemus when He declared: “Ye must be 
born again,” and “Except a man be born again 
he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 
3:3.) We are children of God in the true 


sense, not by being born, but by being born 
again; not by natural generation, but by 
supernatural regeneration. We enter the provi¬ 


dential kingdom by being borh. We enter the 
church kingdom by being born of water (bap¬ 
tism is the door into the visible church). We 
enter the spiritual kingdom by being born of 
the Spirit- by regeneration. 


2SS Postmillenmailsm and The Higher Critics 

Paul referred to this inner spiritual kingdom 
which has its throne in the hearts of those 
who love God when he declared: “The king¬ 
dom of God is not meat and drink; but right¬ 
eousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy 
Ghost.” (Rom. 14:17.) No premillennialist 
contends that this kingdom is the millennial 
kingdom of the future. Did not J. A. Seiss 
say the kingdom is in the heart; and unless 
first found in the heart it will never be found 
at all? George P. Mains prefaces a quotation 
from Seiss in these words: “Desiring, as near 
as may be, to let premillenniaHsm speak for 
itself, I quote from Joseph A. Seiss, who ranks, 

I suppose, among the leading American ex¬ 
pounders of the doctrine” (p. 18). But 
why did he not let the same celebrated 
Seiss speak for the doctrine when he 
assails the theory as follows: “Pre- 
millennialism seems to be very little inter¬ 
ested concerning either the history or lessons 
growing out of the first coming of Christ. The 
philosophy of this attitude is obvious. The 
real kingdom of Christ has not yet arrived. 
It will not even be installed until Christ at 
some future coming shall set up his visible 
reign in the earth.” (“Premillennialism,” p. 
133.) He charges the premillennialists as 
teaching that the real kingdom of Christ has 

not appeared. Whereas the very same author 

from whom he quotes takes particular pains 


The Kingdom of God 289 

to state that the kingdom of God is first found 
in the heart. (“Last Times,” p. 120.) 

Dr. E. L. Eaton (post) thus deliberates on 
the kingdom: “How utterly divergent are the 

conceptions of Matthew, Peter and James on 
the one hand, and of John and Paul on the 
other, as to the real character of Christ’s doc¬ 
trine and kingdom. To the first group the 
church is a Jewish institution, and Christianity 
a reformed Judaism; to Paul and John it is not 
a Judaism af all, but a new thing under the 
sun. To Matthew and Peter it is a sort of 
millennial kingdom, such as the Jews had long 
been looking for; that it was soon to be 
enthroned in this world, with its capital at 
Jerusalem, and with Christ upon its throne. 
To Paul and John it is not in any sense an 
earthly kingdom, but a spiritual one having 
its throne in the hearts of those who love God.” 
(“The Millennial Dawn Heresy,” p. 14.) Dr. 
Eaton’s book might well be named “The Dawn 
ot the ‘Methodist Heresy.” 

There is no disharmony or contradiction 
between the views of the above named apostles. 
Matthew and Peter doubtless knew as much 
about the inner spiritual kingdom as our hon¬ 
orable postmillennial opponent, Dr. Eaton. 
John was an expert on the second coming of 
Christ and the millennial kingdom, as the 
Book of Revelation plainly shows. Paul was 
acquainted with both kingdoms. (Rom. 14:17 


290 PoaiK'&llQamsaliSin Th® Higher Crkacs 

and 2 Tim. A: 1.) It was Paul who said: “If 
ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, 
and heirs according to the promise.” (Gal. 
3: 29.) Matthew was well acquainted with the 
inner spiritual kingdom. ‘‘But seek ye first the 
kingdom of God and his righteousness.” (Matt. 
6: 3 3.) This was no earthly Judais kingdom. 
It is in the Book of Matthew that we find tha 
following Scripture: “And from the days of 
John the Baptist until now the kingdom of 
heaven suffereth violence and the violent (en¬ 
thusiastic) take it by force.” (Matt. 11:12.) 
Is hi? a narrow, national, Judiac sort of mil¬ 
lennial kingdom? It seems that Dr. Eaton is 
mistaken in his view of Matthew. Again: “The 
publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of 
God before you ” (Matt. 21:31.) Go into 
what kingdom ? The spiritual kingdom entered 
by the new birth. Jesus said to the scribe, who 
answered discreetly: “Thou art not far from 
the kingdom of God.” (Mark. 12:34.) This 
is easily identified as the inner, spiritual, invis¬ 
ible kingdom received by regeneration. It is 
the work of Christ, not to get men out of 
hell, but to get hell out of men; not to get 
men into heaven primarily, but to get heaven 
into men. It is not the kingdom over us, nor 
the kingdom around us, nor the kingdom ahead 
of us, but the kingdom within us that is going 

to save us. The Bible puts great emphasis 
upon th« interior kingdom. Do not let the 


291 


The Kingdom of God 


postmillennialists for a moment imagine that 
the premillennialists underestimate or minimize 
this inner spiritual kingdom. As a present 
interior reality it is all-essential. We have the 
kingdom in mystery here and now, but. during 
the millennium we will see the kingdom in its 
manifestation. “For ye are dead and your 
life is hid with Christ in Cod. When Christ, 
who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye 
also appear (in princely array) with him in 
glory.” 


By repentance, faith and the new birth we 
may receive the kingdom of God in our hearts. 

*Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which 
cannot be moved, let us have grace.” (Heb. 
12 : 28 .) The unshakable, immovable, moral 
kingdom may be received, realized, experi¬ 
enced and enjoyed in this life. Dr. Shailer 
Mathews, Dean of the University of Chicago, 
declares “The kingdom of God, that is to say, 
the reign of God in human life, the triumphs 
of the ideals of Jesus, will come when the spirit 
of Jesus comes into human hearts. That is 
the true promillenarlamsm.” ( Tract, “Will 
Christ Come Aagain?” p. 21.) No, this is 
not 'true premillenarianism. But true premil- 
lenarianists believe in the coming of the Spirit 
of Jesus into human hearts. This kingdom or 
reifm of God in the soul is not to be confounded 

o 

with the millennial kingdom. No more can 
we confine the realms over which Gad reigns 


292 Postmillenni&Ksm arid The Higher Critics 


to one kingdom. Let us make this point clear 
iby way of illustration. Take some earthly 
king, for instance. The king is one, but he is 
the ruler* ;over different realms. He. is the 
head of his own home. He rules and reigns 
in the domestic realm. Again, he owns a large 
plant or business enterprise which employs 
thousands of workmen. As the owner, boss 
and proprietor, he rules and reigns over this 
industrial realm. Then as the king of the 
empire he rules and reigns over the national 
realm. Finally, if he has the kingship of self- 
control, he rules and reigns over his own spirit 
Here we have one king ruling over four king¬ 
doms—the domestic kingdom, the industrial 
kingdom, the national kingdom and the psychi¬ 
cal kingdom. Dr. Talmage once referred to 
the home as a kingdom within a kingdom— 
msp&Fium in impe;io. The King of kings, the 
Lord of lords, is one. But many realms or 
kingdoms are included in the far reach of His 
imperial reign and the ramifications of the 
divine rule. We have given attention to three 
of these kingdoms. We now come to another. 

4. The heavenly kingdom. Heaven is God’s 
throne. There He rules and reigns without a 
rival. We speak cf the kingdom of grace and 
the kingdom of glory. The kingdom of grace 
is in the heart of the true Christian. The 


kingdom of glory is in heaven. God dwells 
(rules) in the high and holy heaven; with 


The Kingdom cf God 


293 


him also that is cf a humble and contrite spirit. 
The divine rule in heaven is represented in the 
Bible by the term kingdom. ‘Tor so an en¬ 
trance shall be ministered unto you abundantly 
into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and 
aviour, Josus Christ” (2 Peter 1: 11.) 


c 


“Jesus is living and reigneth on high, 
Living, hosanna, the King of the sky.” 

“And the Lord shall deliver me from every 
evil work, and will preserve me unto his 
heavenly kingdom.” (1 Tim. 4:18). 

We wonder if postmillennial critics call this 
kingdom an earthly, materialistic, national, 
Judaic, political kingdom? Can this heavenly 
kingdom be identified with any of the previous 
kingdoms mentioned? In a sense it may be 
considered a part of that broad, providential 
kingdom prescribed by divine sovereignty and 
natural law. But it is more than this. It can 
not !be identified with the church or ecclesi¬ 
astical kingdom. However, it includes the 
church triumphant. Nor can it be identified 
with the inner spiritual kingdom of grace in 
the human soul in this life, although it may 
incorporate this element in the spirits of just 
men made perfect who are now with the 
innumerable company of angels in the heav¬ 
enly Jerusalem. (Heb. 12:23.) The Apostle 
James points to the heavenly kingdom when 


294 Pestmiilennialism and The Higher Critics 


he declares that God has “chosen the poor of 
this world rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom 
which he has promised to them that love him.” 
(James 2:5.) He could not have meant the 
spiritual kingdom in the heart, for they were 
already in possession of this kingdom-—for all 
that love God have the kingdom of grace 
within their souls. 

We have given the formula of four king¬ 
doms—the providential kingdom, the ecclesi¬ 
astical kingdom, the spiritual kingdom and the 
heavenly kingdom. The kingdom means one 
thing in one place and another thing in another 
place. We are compelled, therefore, to use 
some qualifying term. Shall we apply the 
term phase in order to make the distinction 
clear? How would it sound to say the provi¬ 
dential phase of thy kingdom ruleth over all? 
Except a man be born again he cannot see 
the spiritual phase of the kingdom of God? 
The ecclesiastical phase of the kingdom of God 
is like unto a net that was cast into the sea? 
The spiritual phase of the kingdom of God is 
not meat and drink, buf righteousness, peace 
and joy in the Holy Ghost? Seek first the 
spiritual phase of the kingdom of God and his 
righteousness and all these things shall be 
cdded unto you? 

Why not apply the descriptive adjective 
directly to the noun kingdom, omitting the 
word phase? In which case we would have 


295 


The Kingdom of God 

providential kingdom, spiritual kingdom, church 
kingdom and heavenly kingdom. Quite an 
improvement on the term phase, both in sound 
and sense. Thy (sovereign) kingdom ruleth 
over all. (Ps. 103: 19). Seek first the (spir¬ 
itual) kingdom of God and his righteousness 
and all these (temporal) things shall be added 
unto you. (Matt. 6:33.) But the children of 
the (ecclesiastical) kingdom shall be cast out 
into outer darkness. (Matt. 8:12.) The (spir¬ 
itual) kingdom of God cometh not with ob¬ 
servation. Neither shall they say, Lo, here! 
oi Lo, there! for behold, the (spiritual) king¬ 
dom of God is within (among) you. (Luke 
17:20,21.) Wherefore we receiving the 
(spiritual) kingdom which cannot ibe moved. 
(Heb. 12: 28.) Therefore I say unto you the 
(ecclesiastical) kingdom of God shall be taken 
from you and given to a nation bringing forth 
the fruits thereof. Matt 21:43. The (Spiritual) 
Kingdom of God is like unto a treasure hid in a 
field, (Matt. 13-44) The Son of man shall ' 
send forth His angels and they shall 
gather cut of his (ecclesiastical) kingdom 
all things that offend and them that do iniq¬ 
uity. (Matt. 13:41.) The ecclesiastical and 
sovereign kingdoms are the only kingdoms in 
which the workers of iniquity and offenders 

are found. They are not in the spiritual king¬ 
dom—only the good are there. This could not 
be the providential or sovereign kingdom. It 


293 Po@tmii!ennialbm and The Higher Critics 


was not taken from the Jews and given to the 
Gentiles. (Matt. 21: 43.) 

Do these four kingdoms, which we have 
defined and upon which we have commented, 
cover the entire ground? No. There is another 
kingdom, as distinctly marked and as graciously 
promised in the Scriptures as any of the fore¬ 
going. It is the fifth and final kingdom. We 
have purposely left the discussion of it to the 
very last. We have discovered that the most 
convenient way to classify and distinguish the 
different kingdoms is to apply to each a dif¬ 
ferentiating, descriptive adjective. 

5. The millennia?, apocalyptic or eschato¬ 
logies! kingdom. We note three distinguishing 
features of this kingdom. It is eschatological 
—-belongs to the realms of the future. It is 
apocalyptic—connected with the Apocalypse, 
or revelation of Jesus Christ at His second 
coming. It is millennial —sychronlzes with the 
millennium, or thousand years’ reign. Three 
of the former kingdoms we have mentioned— 
the providential, the spiritual and the ecclesi¬ 
astical—will converge 'as constituent elements 
of the millennial kingdom. At the close of the 
millennium, when Christ delivers up the king¬ 
dom to the Father (1 Cor. 15:23, 24), then 
all the different kingdoms (or phases of the 
kingdom, if you please) will blend into the 
one consummated kingdom of God—the nat¬ 
ural, the moral, the ecclesiastical, the millennial 


297 


Tiae Kingdom of God 

and the heavenly will all be one consecrated, 
eternal, everlasting kingdom. The earth will 
be redeemed, purified, made new and restored 
to the celestial empire. The restitution of all 
things will then be complete. 

But there is a red-letter day of a millennial 
dispensation marked on the calendar of the 
universe previous to the final consummation. 
Let us turn to the Word for light on this 
important subject (Dan. 2:44), “And in the 
days of these kings shall the God of heaven 
set up a kingdom which shall never be de¬ 
stroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to 
other people, ‘but it shall break in pieces and 
consume all these kingdoms and it shall stand 
forever.” Rev. 11: 15, “The kingdoms of this 
world are become the kingdom of our Lord, 
and of his Christ; and he shall reign forever 
and ever.” The postmillennialists generally 
alfirm that the kingdom described by Daniel 
was set up at the day of Pentecost. They argue 
that the expression, “In the days of these 
kings,” implies that the kingdom was set up 
while the Roman government was yet standing 
in the person of the Roman emperor. This is 
absolutely incorrect, because the stone that was 
cut out without hands smote the Image upon 
the feet, showing that the time of the stone 
kingdom was long after the Roman Empire had 
been divided and subdivided into ten kingdoms. 
Pentecost was before the Roman Empire was 


28S Pcsimillcniilidism and The Higher Critics 

divided. The postmilllennialists disagree among 
themselves as to whether the fourth kingdom 
depicted in the Book of Daniel means (he 
Roman Empire. On this question the higher 
critics turn against their old-time postmiliennial 
neighbors. Dr. E. L. Eaton, an old-time post- 
millennialist, says: “Biblical scholars generally 
agree that the head of gold meant the king 
and Kingdom of Babylon; the silver breast and 
arms the Medo-Persian Empire; the brass belly 
and thighs the Macedonian or Greek Empire; 
the iron legs the Roman Empire.” (“Millennial 
Dawn Heresy,” p. 106 .) Now hear a more 
up-to-date, a more scholarly posimillennialist, 
Dr. Henry C. Sheldon: “The traditional view 
that the fourth kingdom depicted in the Book 
of Daniel is to be identified with the Roman 
has to a very large extent been relinquished 
by recent scholarship.” (“Recent Adventism,” 
p. 90.) Dr. Eaton will have to increase his 
speed if he keeps up with recent scholarship. 
The higher critics who have rushed to the rescue 
of postrnillennialism could not afford to admit 
that the fourth empire in the Book of Daniel 
was the Roman Empire. This would imply an 
element of prediction in prophecy, which they 
deny. They claim that the Book of Daniel 
was written by an unknown apocalyptic writer 
about the year 166 B. C.; that Antiochus 

Epiphanes was the evil genius of the book; 
that the fourth empire meant the Assyrian 


299 


The Kingdom of God 


province under Antiochus Epiphanes. Rome 
was not in it at all. Hence, according to the 
opinion of the most recent postmiilennial schol¬ 
arship, if the kingdom was set up during the 
actual reign of the fourth empire it must have 
been inaugurated years before Pentecost. The 
old-time postmihennialists are keeping fast 
company when they line up with the higher 
critcs. All postmillennialists are not higher 
critics, but practically all higher critics are pcst- 
niillennialists. The stone kingdom must be as 
literal as the four kingdoms it superseded. The 
kingdoms of this world are become the kingdom 
of our Lord and His Christ. No kingdom of 
this description was ever set up at Pentecost. 
When this prop is knocked from .beneath the 
postmillennialists, they rally and rely upon the 
following verses: “Repent, for the kingdom 
of heaven is at hand., (Matt # 3:2; 4:17.) 
“And as you go, preach, saying the kingdom 
of heaven is el hand.” (Matt. 10: 17.) “And 
say unto them, the kingdom of God is come 
nigh unto you.” (Luke 10:9) Dr. Eaton 
offers this comment:-. “The Greek word which 
is here translated ‘at hand’ is egglro, which 
means to be near in time or place; and when 
uttered by each of these persons or companies, 
it was a very emphatic proclamation of the 
nearness of the kingdom. It was close by, at 
hand.” He adds: “After Pentecost there is no 
instance of any one proclaiming, The kingdom 


300 PostmillenniaSism and The Higher Critics 

of heaven is at hand’! Pentecost fulfilled all the 
conditions of that proclamation. Pentecost 
abundantly fulfills every item promised and 
every expectation created. After Pentecost, 
Christians claimed to be in the kingdom-—the 
.message was not the kingdom of heaven is at 
hand, but the kingdom is now here” (pp. 110, 
114, 115). 

But what kingdom was this near-at-hand 
kingdom? With the answer of this question 
the whole difficulty is solved. We cannot say 
it was just the kingdom. We have seen that 
there are several kingdoms depicted in the Scrip¬ 
tures. If it be claimed that the near-at-hand 
kingdom, is the church and that the church was 
organized on the day of Pentecost this upsets 
the postmillennial view that the kingdom is 
never to be identified with the church. Eaton, 
himself, says:— “This might do for a Roman 
Catholic, but we know of no respectable Pro¬ 
testant in the world who identifies the church as 
the kingdom.” (p. 112). The church, even 
if it be identified as the near-at-hand kingdom, 
was not set up at Pentecost. The Scriptures 
speak of the church as being in existence be¬ 
fore the day of Pentecost. Acts 7:38, “The 
church in the wilderness.” Matt. 18:17, “And 
if he shall neglect to hear them tell it unto the 

church.” Heb. 2:12, “In the midst of the church 
will I sing praise unto thee.” This is a direct 


301 


The Kingdom of God 

quotation from Ps. 22:22, “In the midst of 
the congregation will I sing praise unto thee.” 

If it be said that the word ecclesia means an 
assembly or congregation, we answer the church 
is “'a congregation of faithful men where the 
pure word of God is preached and the sacra¬ 
ments duly administered.” The church was 
functioning before Pentecost. The main offi¬ 
cers were already chosen and ordained. The 
two sacraments of the-church were instituted 
previous to Pentecost. The church was not iborn 
but baptized with the Holy Ghost on the day of 
Pentecost. The “kingdom at hand” cannot be 
identified with the church,the providential king¬ 
dom nor the millennial kingdom. It was the 
spiritual, gospel kingdom of grace. With the 
powerful preaching of John and Christ and the 
Apostles, the kingdom of grace in the form of 
a glorious opportunity came nigh, vea to the 
very heart’s door of everyone that heard them. N 

“But if I with the finger of God cast out de¬ 
vils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come up¬ 
on you-” (Luke 11:2o"). “Thou art not far 
from the kingdom of God.” (Mark 12:34). 

“And heal the sick that are therein and say unto 
them, the kingdom of God is come nigh unto 
you.” (Luke 10:9). The Sriptures do not say 
“The time of the setting up of the kingdom of 
heaven is et hand,” but the kingdom of heaven 

(itself) is at hand, not dispensationally near a 


302 Posimiliensl&lism fynd The Higher Critics 


ceitain period, but personally near certain peo¬ 
ple. 

Talk about Christians being in the kingdom 
after Pentecost! Dr. Eaton has not studied his 
Bible carefully enough. Christans were in the 
kingdom before Pentecost. Here is where the 
theory that the kingdom was set up at Pente¬ 
cost vanishes: “And from the days of John 
(not Pentecost) until now the kingdom of 
heaven suffereth violence and the violent take 
it by force.” (Matt. 11:12). The kingdom 
in this instance was not at hand but in the heart. 
This was previous to Pentecost. “Verily I say 
unto you, that the publicans and harlots go in¬ 
to the kingdom of God before you.” (Matt. 
2 1:31). This was previous to Pentecost. Now 
what becomes of the postmillennial view that 
the kingdom was inaugurated on the day of 
Pentecost? It, like all their other vagaries, 
goes glimmering to the realms of exploded 
theories! Pentecost is memorable in the annals 
of history, not for the setting up of a church 
or a kingdom, but for the inauguration of the 
dispensation of the Holy Ghost, the sanctifica¬ 
tion of the one hundred and twenty believers 
and the conversion of three thousand souls. 

Another unwarranted and hasty conclusion 
of postmillennialism is drawn from the state¬ 
ment of Christ:- “Verily I say unto you, There 
be some standing here, which shall not taste of 
death, till they see the Son of man coming in 


303 


The Kingdom g£ Gcd 

bis kingdom.” (Matt. 16:28). This is con¬ 
strued to mean that the kingdom was to be es- 
tablshed while some of the disciples were yet 
alive. But the Transfiguration fulfilled all the 
conditions of that proclamation. The very 
next verse goes on to describe the transfigura¬ 
tion scene which is the millennial kingdom in 
miniature. Dr. Eaton remarks:- “So, if the 
‘Kingdom of God came with power’ and ‘Christ 
came in his kingdom’ in the Transfiguration, 
it was not real at all - only a vision!” But the 
Apostle Peter who was there is a better judge 
than Dr. Eaton or any other postmillennialist. 
The Apostle says:- “ror we have not followed 
cunningly devised fables (or mere visions) 
when we made known unto you the coming of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses 
of his majesty. For he received from God hon¬ 
or and glory, when there came such a voice 
to him from the excellent glory, This is my be¬ 
loved Son in whom I am well pleased. And this 
voice which came from heaven we heard, when 
we were with him in the holy mount.” (1 Pet¬ 
er 1:16-18). 

Dr. Geo. P. Ecknran in his book - The Re¬ 
turn of the Redeemer - says:- “Indeed he (Je¬ 
sus) often pictures the kingdom as already 
present.” (p. 115). Again he says:- “But 
certainly the kingdom of which Jesus speaks is 
a present kingdom.” (p. 119). “Jesus unmis¬ 
takably held that the kingdom existed.” (p. 


304 Posimilieimialism and The Higher Critics 

118). “It is both near and far. It had already 
begun, yet it is still to come in its perfection of 
power and final triumph. It is both existent 
and nonexistent.” (p. 128). He admits that 
the kingdom is present and that it is future. He 
fails to distinguish between the different king¬ 
doms. No kingdom can be existent and nonex¬ 
istent at the same time. This is contrary to the 
primary laws of thought. J. H. Snowden says: 
“It may surprise some readers to learn that pre- 
millennarians, as a class, deny that the kingdom 
of God is yet in the world. They hold that the 
kingdom of God will not be set up in this 
world till Christ comes in glory and establishes 
it at Jerusalem as its capital” (63). “Christ 
will come and inaugurate the Eternal Kingdom” 
(94). “This Scriptural doctrine of the king¬ 
dom plants a mountain range right across the 
path of premillenarianism. It utterly subverts 
the premillennial doctrine of a kingdom that 
does not yet exist and is not to convert the 
world by the present ministration of the gospel, 
but is suddenly to be set up only when Christ 
comes in person to inaugurate it in Jerusalem 
with the pageantry and pomp of cosmic power. 
The correct concept of the kingdom thus gives 
the solution of this problem and it undermines 
the premillenarian and establishes the postmil- 
lenarian doctrine.” (121,2). “It denies that 

the kingdom of God is yet present in the world 
and affirms that it will not be inaugurated un- 


305 


The Kingdom of God. 

til Christ comes.” (221). “The kingdom is 
now present in the world and yet it is also fu¬ 
ture.” (23 8). “Its general course runs as fol¬ 
lows. The kingdom of God is not yet in ex¬ 
istence in the world and will not be initiated un¬ 
til Christ comes.” (p. 6). 

Like any general term, it is used in various 
senses. In its widest sense it means God’s uni¬ 
versal sovereignty over the universe. (Ps.45: 
6) ; in a narrower sense it means God’s pro¬ 
vidential rule over the world (Ps. 22: 28); 
in a still narrower sense it means God’s theocra¬ 
tic rule over Israel (Ex. 19: 6.) and through 
them over the world (Ps. 72:11). In some 
instances it looks beyond this world into the 
heavenly eternal kingdom (1 Cor. 15:50). 
The sense however, in which it is commonly 
used is the rule of God in the hearts of obe¬ 
dient souls.” (50,5 1). 

Chas. M. Bishop (post) speaking of the king¬ 
dom, says:- “It has been given an Institution¬ 
al significance as having earthly form and vis¬ 
ible organization distinguished by well-known 
marks from the world in which it was estab¬ 
lished. This is a view held by the PvOman 
Catholic church. 

“The expression has in recent years been giv¬ 
en a Socialistic interpretation. Another view 
of Jesus’ meaning in the use of these words is 
described as Eschatological or Apocalyptic.” 
Prof. Bishop continues: ‘'One 'aspect of it ap- 




06 Fastmlllfinni&Ikaa sad The Higher Critics 


pearing repeatedly in the teaching of Jesus, is 
that of a kingdom already corns.” But there is 
no question that Jesus oftenest referred to the 
kingdom as yet to CGme.” Jesus used it (king¬ 
dom) broadly, variously. But always it con¬ 
tained these elements: God was the ruler; men 
were its citizens; love was its law; and life was 
its expression and outcome/' 

Dr. M. S. Terry in Hastings Bible Dictionary 
says:- “The kingdom then is not a spectacle of 
worldly vision, but has to do first of all with 
the inner life of man” - “It is in part a present 
possession, but it contemplates also a future 
eternal blessedness.’’ Again he says:- “The 
Bible assumes that the Creator of the heavens 
and the earth must needs be also the everlast¬ 
ing Ruler of the same. The Universe is God’s 
dominion and every creature therein is subject 
to his power.” 

Fausset’s Bible Cyclopedia says:- “Messiah’s 
kingdom, is a whole, both in its spirit¬ 
ual invisible phase, the gospel dispensation of 
grace, and also in its future manifestation oa 
earth in glory, when finally heaven and earth 
shall be joined.*** Our Lord’s parables desig¬ 
nate several aspects and phases of it by the one 
common phrase - kingdom of God.” 

Prof. Snowden and Dr. Mains and other 
postmillennialists do not give the premillennial- 
ists a fair deal They entirely misrepresent the 
premillennial position when they positively 


307 


The Kingdom of God. 


affirm that the premillennialists teach that the 
'‘kingdom of God is not yet in existence in the 
world and will not be initiated until Christ 
comes.” Note that the charge does not say 
that the Apocalyptic or millennial kingdom will 
not be initiated until Christ comes. This would 


more correctly represent the premillennial posi¬ 
tion. But the postmillennialists, it seems, are 
fully determined to misrepresent the premillen¬ 
nialists, not only in regard to the kingdom, but 
on many other points. Prof. Snowden, himself, 
says:- “The kingdom is now present in the 
world and yet it is also future.” Then he turns 
right around and accuses the premillennialists 
as teaching that the kingdom is not yet inaugu¬ 
rated. They do teach that the future kingdom is 
not yet inaugurated. But what is this future king¬ 
dom? This is where the issue is sharply drawn 
between the two theories. The postmillen- 
arian argues that the future kingdom is only the 
consummated stage or completed form of the 
present kingdom. Therefore, according to the 
postmillennial view if the now existent king¬ 
dom,propagated and perpetuated by present 
gospel agencies, ever becomes so extended that 
it reaches a mature, world-wide and universal 
stage, it will meet all the demands of the millen¬ 
nial kingdom. The future kingdom, in the esti¬ 
mation of postmillennialists, is merely the 
grown-up present kingdom. It takes much more 
than this, however, to meet the premillennial 


303 PosimilleRmaSism and The Higher Critics 


demands of the eschatological, apocalyptic, mil¬ 
lennial kingdom. It requires not a grown-up 
kingdom, but a shown-up kingdom. (Col.2:3). 
it requires the second coming of Christ - the 
personal epiphany of his paurousia. The king 
himself must be present in person before the 
millennial kingdom is inaugurated'- All the 
saints and holy angels must likewise be present. 
There must be a restoration, (as Wesley and 
Fletcher claimed), of the animal kingdom to 
Edenic gentleness. There must also be the res¬ 
toration of the vegetable kingdom. The an¬ 
cient longevity of life must be restored. The 
world must be laid under tribute and the devil 
cast out and incarcerated in the pit. Hence the 
premillennial program is greater, far more 
grand and glorious, than the postmillennial 
program. Prof. Snowden declares that the 
kingdom of God is the key to the question of 
the Coming cf the Lord, that the correct con¬ 
cept of the kingdom gives the true solution of 
this problem, (p 50 and p 122). But what is 
the correct concept of the kingdom? The cor¬ 
rect concept of the kingdom, according to Prc-f. 
Snowden’s own testimony is “that the king¬ 
dom is thus to be fully established before 
Christ comes .in his final advent to close the 
chapter of its earthly history and usher in its 
eternal state.” (p. 121). “This Scriptural doc¬ 
trine of the kingdom,” he continues, “plants 

a mountain range across the path of premillen- 


309 


The Kingdom of God. 

arianism.” (p. 121,) The professor magni¬ 
fies a molehill into a mountain. Christ comes 
not to close the last chapter, but to open a new 
chapter in the history of kingdoms. Prof. 
Snowden more than once charges that the pre- 
millenarians teach that the kingdom of God is 
not yet in existence in the world and will not be 
initiated until Christ comes, (pp. 6, 63, 202, 
221). Premillennialists do not teach that the 
kingdom of God is not yet in existence in the 
world. It is already in the world embryonically, 
spiritually, ecclesiastically, providentially, but 
not in the full millennial sense of the word. 

In view of the above charge one of three 
things is absolutely certain. Either Prof. Snow¬ 
den and Dr. Mains are ignorant of what pre¬ 
millennialists really teach on the subject of the 
kingdom, or they have unjustly misrepresented 
{hem, or they have innocently and inadvertently 
made a mistake in the matter. If the first alter¬ 
native is true, they ought to inform themselves 
before they make such ex-cathedra, authorita¬ 
tive and dogmatic assertions on the subject. 
If the second alternative is true they ought to 
retract and apologize to the premillennialists. 
If not, they ought to be exposed before the bar 
of public opinion for wilful misrepresentation. 
If the third alternative is true, they ought to 
publicly correct their blunder. There is a spe¬ 
cial epoch, a crisis, connected with the inaug¬ 
uration of every kingdom contemplated in the 


310 Pcstmillcjanialism and The Higher Critics 

Bible. The providential kingdom immediately 
followed in the wake of fiat creation. The ec¬ 
clesiastical kingdom was organized or instituted 
in the house of Abraham. It did not gradually 
evolve from the previous providential king¬ 
dom. Its origin was a crisis, an epoch. It is 
distinct from all other kingdoms. The inner spir¬ 
itual kingdom is suddenly set up in the 
human heart ( by instantaneous, supernatural 
regeneration. It is an individualistic king¬ 
dom. The heavenly kingdom itself is not a sub¬ 
ject of evolution but an object of creation. 

All these four kingdoms are distinct. They 
are not confused or identified one with another. 
The providential never becomes the ecclesiasti¬ 
cal and the ecclesiastical never becomes the 
providential. The individualistic never becomes 
either the providential or the ecclesiastical. 

In nature, when a portion of the mineral 
kingdom is transformed over into the vegetable 
kingdom, it ceases to be a part of the mineral 
kingdom. Likewise, when any particular por¬ 
tion of the vegetable kingdom is taken over 
into the animal kingdom it is no longer a part 
of the vegetable kingdom. But the same per¬ 
son may be the subject of the providential, 
ecclesiastical and spiritual kingdom at one and 
the same time- He does not cease to be a 

member of one by becoming the subject of 
another. 


The Kingdom of God. HI 

Now let us apply this principle to the fifth 
kingdom—the apocalyptic, millennial kingdom 
—the kingdom to be inaugurated in connection 
with the second coming of Christ. Like all 
other kingdoms, it will be ushered in as a 
crisis, as an epoch. It will be catastrophic and 
cataclysmic. It will not be the product of the 
providential kingdom; it will not ibe merely 
another name for the grown-up ecclesiastical 
kingdom. It will be even more than a mani¬ 
festation of the mysterious (inner) moral 
kingdom. The hidden subjects of the present 
spiritual kingdom will constitute the charter 
members of the glorious millennial kingdom. 
(Col. 2:3.) The federation and combination 
of the providential, ecclesiastical and spiritual 
kingdom cannot constitute the millennial 
kingdom. The Bible does not teach that the 
present kingdom will gradually and impercep¬ 
tibly merge into the millennium. We cannot 
make the millennium, as the University of 
Chicago suggests; we cannot grow the millen¬ 
nium; we cannot bring in the millennial king- 
dom e The millennial kingdom will come as s. 
cataclysm, as a crisis, as an epoch. Christ will 
visibly and personally descend in the clouds of 
heaven and will inaugurate and organize the 
great apocalyptic kingdom. It is a glorious 
kingdom set up by the direct supernatural 

agency of God. “In the days of those kings 
shall the God of Heaven set up a kingdom.” 


312 Postmillennlalism and The Higher Critics 

(Dan. 2:44.) “The Lord shall be king over 
all the earth.” (Zech. 14:9.) It will be a 
kingdom “under the whole heaven.” (Dan. 7: 
14.) “We shall reign on the earth.” (Rev. 5: 
10.) “One shall have 'authority over ten cities 
and one over live cities. The kingdoms of this 
world shall (become the kingdom of our Lord 
and his Christ.” (Rev. 11: 15.) “Thy kingdom 
come, thy will be acne, on earth as it is in 
heaven.” (Matt. 6: 9,10.) “He shall judge the 
quick and the dead at his appearing and his 
kingdom.” (2 Tim. 4:1.) 


The postmillennialists, failing in 'argument, 
try ridicule. They scout the idea of the glorious 
personal reign of Christ on the earth. Dr. 
Eaton voices the postmillennial sentiment in 
these words: “Now, to a healthy mind, it is 
simply unihidbsble that Jesus Christ, the second 
person of the Trinity, would leave the central 
throne of a universe so vast, with such stu¬ 
pendous concerns upon His hands and heart, 
and come down to this little world—which is 
only a grain of sand in a universe so vast— 
and set up a throne and reign here over a little 
handful of His saints for a thousand years! 
Belittle Himself to the level of a petty, earthly 
Kaiser, just to gratify the whims of millennial 
dawn! The Christ we worship is too glorious 
in person and too majestic in moral splendor 
to engage in such a belittling performance” 
(pp. 124-5, “The Millennial Dawn Heresy”) # 


313 


The Kingdom of God. 

The Deists could use the same kind of sophistry 
and ridicule against the first coming of Christ 
to this ‘‘grain of sand-” They could grow 
eloquent upon the absurdity of the glorious, 
majestic God of the Eternal Heavens belittling 
Himself by coming down to this tiny atom 
amidst immensity and incarnating Himself in 
a tiny, insignificant bit of humanity. Dr. 
Eaton says:- “He came to this planet once to 
redeem it. He will come again to judge the 
world.” The Deist might ask Dr. Eaton why 
Christ would lower Himself to the level <of a 
petty judge on the bench! It is one thing to 
ridicule a doctrine, and it is quite another thing 
to refute it. The premillennialists admit that 
the kingdom is present, while the postmillen- 
nialists admit that the kingdom is to come. But 
in this case each has a different idea in view 
when they employ the term kingdom. Class¬ 
ification clears up the whole difficulty. The 
premillennialists claim that the providential, 
ecclesiastical and inner moral kingdoms are 
all present, but that the millennial kingdom 
is yet to come. The postmillennialists of course 
claim that the kingdom is present and that the 
kingdom is also future. But here is where 

they make their colossal blunder. They claim 
that the kingdom to come is the same kingdom 
that is already here. They do not look for a 
new kingdom to come, but for the already 


314 Postmillsnnialiasn 2 nd The TKghar Crimes 

existent kingdom to become world-wide and 
universally triumphant. 

The premillennialists, on the other hand, 
deny that the present kingdom will become 
the millennial kingdom but insist that the future 
kingdom will come out of the cloudy columns 
•f the dim distance as a crisis; 'as suddenly as 
the crack of doom the sky will break and roll 
back as a sheep-skin scroll, Christ with his roy¬ 
al retinue v/ill descend in visible manifestation, 
in splendor and great glory; the dead in Christ 
will rise, clad in robes of white, the living 
saints will be changed in the twinkling of an 
eye, celestialized and caught up into mid-air to 
meet their Lord; the devil, the beast and the 
false prophet will be cast into the lake of fire; 
suffering creation will be delivered from the 
bondage of corruption; wars and violence will 
be brought to an end; the man of Sin will foe 
destroyed; the judgment of the living nations 
will take place; (Matt. 25:31) ; the incorrigible 
wicked will be banished; a nation will be born 
in a day; the ancient longevity of human life 
will be restored; Jerusalem will become the seat 
of universal empire and the Golden Age of the 
millennium will be inaugurated in all its beauty 
and magnificence. 

Christ comes to set up a kingdom at the be¬ 
ginning of the thousand years reign and to &a- 
Kvcr up :a kingdom at the close of this dispen- 
sational period. The millennial kingdom, when 


315 


The Kingdom of God, 

once established, will, in a certain sense, incor¬ 
porate the previous kingdom - the spiritual 
kingdom - for the gospel will be preached and 
souls converted, born into the kingdom , the ec¬ 
clesiastical kingdom will be taken over. The 
providential kingdom will be more closely allied 
to the spiritual kingdom. The heavenly king¬ 
dom will contribute much to the millennial 
kingdom, as heaven and earth will then be 
brought into closer contact with each other. 

The millennial stage of the kingdom, al¬ 
though grand and glorious, is not the final, com¬ 
plete and eternal state of the kingdom. The 
kingdom, as Nathaniel West has well said, is “a 
consummation begun below, developed in the 
age to come, and completed in the Eternal 
State.” After all eras, ages and dispensations 
shall have ended; after the restitution of aU 
things; after the close of the millennial period, 
the kingdom will be one. The natural and the 
moral, the providential and the spiritual will all 
coincide. The moral rule of God will be real¬ 
ised and v/ill run parallel with natural law. The 
providential, the ecclesiastical, the spiritual, the 
visible and the heavenly kingdom will at la3t 
be one. The earthly emerges into the heaven¬ 
ly and the mortal is swallowed up by immortal¬ 
ity.” Then cometh the end when ne (Jesus) 

shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, 
even the Father - that God may be all in all 


316 Festmillcnmalism and The Higher Critics 

(1 Cor. 15: 24-28). The kingdom, in the es¬ 
timation of postmilllennialists is a sociological 
kingdom. They lose sight of the providential 
kingdom, the moral individualistic kingdom, the 
future apocalyptic kingdom and almost lose 
sight of the heavenly or glorified kingdom in 
view of the soap, soup and sunshine of sociolo¬ 
gy. Many of the modern postmillennialists 
claim that Christ and the Apostles expected the 
end of he world within the first half of the first 
century. Whereas Christ spoke the parable of 
the nobleman to correct the false notion that 
the kingdom would immediately appear. 
(Luke 19:11). Who, then, we may ask, are 
mistaken about the Coming Kingdom, Christ 
and Paul or the postmillennialists? 

The postmillennialists rely upon four false 
arguments to prove that the so-called sociologi¬ 
cal kingdom will conquer the world before 
Christ comes. These fallacious arguments are 
drawn from the parable of the leaven, the para¬ 
ble of the mustard seed, the Great Commission 
and the “Fulness of the Gentiles.” (Rom. 11: 
25). If we take the leaven to represent the 
gospel, how can the leaven leaven those who 
will not receive it? This is too big a lump 
even for the postmillennialists. They inconsis¬ 
tently claim that the gospel will leaven the 
whole lump (whole world) and yet they allow 
sin to remain in the lump. Prof. Snowden says: 
“Postmillenarianism does not hold that the 


317 


The Kingdom of God. 

Kingdom of God even in its millennial fulness 
and power will be wholly free from evil, ,but it 
believes the leaven will leaven the whole lump 
and the kingdom will become a great tree and 
fill the world. Evil will ever remain in this 
world.” (p. 139. The Coming of the Lord). 

The mustard seed kingdom is full of fowls- 
The church contains many unconverted people. 
This certainly does not represent millennial con¬ 
ditions. The Great Commission contemplates 
the evangelization of the world. But the evan¬ 
gelization of the world is not equivalent to the 
regeneration and sanctification of the world. 


KL 


He that belleveth and is baptised shall be saved 
and lie that believeth not shall be damned.” 
(Mark 16:16). “Go disciple all nations,” doe^ 
not mean to baptize every person in the whole 
wide world (nolens volens) whether they are 
willing or unwilling. We have to reckon with 
the free, moral agency of man. The “Fulness 
of the Gentiles,” is dispensational. It refers to 
the time of Gentile rulership over the nations, 
and not to the conversion of the Gentile world. 
No amount of maneuvering and manipulation 
can make up the millennium until Jesus comes. 
All monarchies, kingdoms, empiies, dynasties, 
republics and democracies will cease when 
the stone ^kingdom is set up and fills the 
whole earth (Dan. 2:44). The Lord will 
be king over all the earth (Zech. 14:9). 
The kingdom will be world-wide, under the 


SIS Postmilkttnialbm Tbs Higher Cities 


whole heavens. This can never be effected by 
present agencies. Jesus must come to accom¬ 
plish this colossal task. The devil is now the 
god of this world (age) (II Cor. 4:4). All the 
postmillennial plans and policies on earth can¬ 
not dislodge Diabolic, But when Jesus comes 
He will dethrone him and imprison him in th« 
pit of pandemonium. The man of Sin (II Thess 
2:3) will remain intact till he is destroyed by 
the brightness of Christ’s coming. The wheat 
and tares will grow together till the end of this 
age. (Matt. 13:40). 


When the Son of Man cometh shall he find 
the faith on the earth? (Luke 18:3). When 
the Son of Man cometh and all the holy angels 
with him, he will sit on the throne of his glory 
and all nations shall be gathered before him. 
He shall separate them one from another as a 
shepherd divideth the sheep from the goats. So 
there will be a numerous flock of goats (sinners) 
living right up to the time of the Second Advent. 
(Matt 25:31,32). 


Now concerning the things of which we kave 
spoken this is the sum—premillennlalism is in 
perfect accord with the scriptural conception 
of the kingdom of God. But the Bible doctrine 
of the kingdom cuts the very ground from under 
postmillenialism. 


Andrew Job ms on. 


CHAPTER XIII 


WHERE POST-MILLENNIALISM UTTERLY 

FAILS. 

There is much more involved in this subject 
than a mere question of revivals, or the spread 
of salvation. Even the earth is to be redeem¬ 
ed from the curse. The fall of man did not re¬ 
sult simply in his personal wickedness. It 
brought a curse upon the whole mundane 
sphere. The earth itself is affected. “Cursed 
be the ground for thy sake; thorns and [briers 
shall it bring forth unto thee: And in the sweat 
of thy face shalt thou eat bread: Dust thou art 
and unto dust shalt thou return”. (Gen. 3:17- 
19). Paul tells us that the whole creation 
groaneth and travaileth in pain together. 
(Rom. 8:19-23). The curse takes in the whole 
man, body, soul, and spirit. No part of man’s 
tripartite nature has escaped; his entire being is 
blighted by the fall. His whole nature has been 
weakened, polluted and undermined by the 
ravages of sin. 

Not only has man himself been cursed by sin, 
but his world fell with him. Sin, like a poison¬ 
ous virus, has permeated the race and smitten 
the very globe itself. Even the many languages 
and dialects of the earth were sent upon man, 
in the confusion of languages at the tower of 
label, as a curse, that they might not be able 


320 Ptf&fcmillennialism and The Higher Critics 

to co-operate in the carrying out of their wick¬ 
ed schemes. Sickness, disease, death, war, pest¬ 
ilence, famine, plagues, divorce, disrupted 
homes, demented minds, broken limbs, blind¬ 
ness, toothache, earache, chills, fevers, rheuma¬ 
tism, consumption; indeed every trouble and 
sorrow, every disease and disaster, every afflic¬ 
tion, whether of mind or body, that comes upon 
the individual; every evil thing that comes up¬ 
on family and state, yea, all the evils of the 
world, came through sin, having been brought 
upon the race by the fall of man. 

The postmillennialists undertake a big job, 
when they promise to ameliorate the sufferings 
of the race and purge out of the earth the ef¬ 
fects of the fall, by their preaching, their Sun¬ 
day Schools and their Missionary activities. 
The thing cannot be done. The agencies at 
hand are insufficient. 

But while the postmillennialists are incom¬ 
petent, and their schemes inadequate, our glor¬ 
ious coming King is abundantly able to carry 
out the full program of earth’s redemption. He 
shall eliminate all the effects of sin, and purge 
from the earth even the very seeds of suffer¬ 
ing and of all evil. Let us notice some things 
that are promised in the Book. 

“For this purpose the Son of God was man¬ 
ifested, that he might destroy the works, (all 
the works) of the devil.” even in the realm of 
matter. There is revealed in the Scriptures, 


Where PosimiSIennialism Utterly Fails 321 

a perfect and endless triumph of good over evil. 
“He shall have dominion from sea to sea, and 
from the river to the ends of the earth.” (Psa. 
72:8). “The earth shall be filled with the 
knowledge of the glory of God, as the waters 
cover the sea.” (Heb. 2:14). The prayer 
taught by our Lord shall be fulfilled, when His 
will shall be “done on earth as it is in heaven”. 

This is the outlook; these things may be 
expected, but this is not all, “war shall cease 
to the ends of the earth”. Yea, “They shall 
beat their swords into plowshares and their 
spears into pruninghooks.” Not only shall peace 
come to the nations, and wars cease forever, 
but even the animal world shall make peace. 
They shall cease to devour and destroy each 
other; and the lion and the lamb, the cow 
and the bear, shall eat from the same trough, 
browse on the same meadow, and “lie down 
in peace together”. 

Will these things actually occur? The Book 
says so, and I have a habit of believing it. 

Jesus Christ, earth’s rightful Sovereign, 
shall take up the reins of universal empire, and 
with autocratic power, bring about universal 
peace, justice and rghteousness. We, in this 
country are great on democracy, and, as be¬ 
tween man and man, I believe in this. But this 
process will never bring in millennial righteous¬ 
ness. Man is too self-centered; he is too much 
inclined to seek his own way, his personal com- 


S22 Pc&trsiillenninlkm an 'A Fhc Higher Critics 

fort, his enrichment, his promotion and self-ag¬ 
grandisement. While the best type of govern¬ 
ment, as the world now exists, is that of a true 
and enlightened democracy, it can never reach 
a state of absolute justice and world-redeeming 
righteousness. What the world needs is a pure, 
wholly disinterested, unselfish Autocrat, of in¬ 
finite wisdom and absolute holiness; and Jesus 
Christ is that Autocrat. All His deeds are 
wrought in wisdom; .all His actions are unself¬ 
ish; all His rulings are in righteousness. Give 
Him the reins of all embracing empire and the 
world will pass into its long-hoped-for “Golden 
Age”. And this Golden Age is the millennium. 

HELL’S TRINITY 

There are three great world-powers with 
which we must reckon. They are the Dragon, 
the Beast, and the False Prophet. The world 
can never ibe redeemed and brought into a 
state of righteousness and obedience to God, 
until this infernal trinity shall be cast out of the 
earth. Reader, do you know who are these 
chieftains of perdition? They hold in their 
benighting 'power, under their blinding, be¬ 
numbing influence, more than four-fifths of 
earth’s population today. They are: (1) 
The Dragon, the Devil; embodied in Paganism, 
(2) The Beast, the Pope; embodied in Roman¬ 
ism, (3) The False Prophet, the Sultan; em¬ 
bodied in Mohammedanism. 


Where Postmillennialism Utterly Falk 323 

These are the three great false religions of 
the world. 1 hat the devil is the dragon, we are 
plainly told in the book of Revelation. Blit the 
devil is a spirit, and he must operate chiefly 
in the earth in some organization in which he 
may be embodied. This he obtains in Pagan¬ 
ism. When he induced our fore-parents to sin, 
he organized Paganism,that men might find 
their religion apart from the true God. Satan's 
scheme worked well for centures. 

When Jesus came to earth, there was no re¬ 
ligion known among men apart from Paganism, 
save that of the Jews. Heathenism held all the 
world under its stupefying power, except the 
little handful of Hebrews. And God had a con¬ 
stant battle to keep them out of idolatry. We 
remember that at the time Moses was receiving 
the Law on the cloud-and-fire-capped summit 
of Sinai, the children of Israel were inducing 
4aron to make them a golden calf at the foot of 
the mountain. As long as the Devil could keep 
the world worshiping images, he knew h i would 
have his way with men. He combatted Old 
Testament religion with Paganism right down 
to the coming of Jesus. 

But after Christianity was launched in the 
earth Satan, shrewd sinner that he is, saw that 
simple Paganism would not be sufficient to ac¬ 
complish his purpose. He therefore proceeded 
to graft Paganism on to the new religion. The 


324 Pofitmillennialism and The Higher Critics 

result was, Roman Catholicism. This was a hy¬ 
brid; a combination of a formal Christianity 
with pure Paganism. Hence, it is a perversion 
of Christianity, a politico-ecclesiasticism. This 
became a successful counterfeit and he has suc¬ 
ceeded in making it a widely-accepted substitute 
for the religion of Christ. 

But there arose in Arabia, out of Old Abra- 
hamic stock, a widespread opposition to idola¬ 
try, to image worship. The new politico-eccle¬ 
siastical Roman Paganism, like the old Pagan¬ 
ism, maintained image worship. This also must 
be fought. 

The new Arabian religion therefore became 
violently iconoclastic. It made constant, terrfic 
and ibloody assaults upon all image worship. 
This, under the leadership of Mohammed, crys- 
talized into the religion Islam, popularly 
known, after the name of its founder, as Mo¬ 
hammedanism. The title chosen for their lead¬ 
er by the adherents of this Arabic religion was 
“The Prophet”. Their battle-cry was “Allah 
is One (Allah is God) : and Mohammed is his 
Frophet”. Shouting this battle-cry, these Ara¬ 
bian hordes went forth to spread the new re¬ 
ligion sword in hand. Men must be converted, 
or die; they must accept the leadership of the 
Prophet, or perish. 

It will be observed that each of these religions 
was a combination of church and state. They 
were all intended for and actually were state 


Where PostmillennsaHsm Utterly Fails 325 

religions. None of them taught the new birth. 
Their national following constituted the body, 
corresponding to the Church in the Christian 
scheme. But they each had a head. In Mo- 
hammedonism the head is Mohammed, the 
Prophet- To them he was authority, both in 
their religious and in their national life. In- 
other words, he was their temporal and spirit¬ 
ual head. And he is “the False Prophet” of 
Scripture. Christ is our “Prophet, Priest and 
King”. 

Paganism, in like manner, has its head and 
actuating force in Satan. He was its origina¬ 
tor; he is its leader and vitalizing power. With¬ 
out his empowering and sustaining presence, Pa¬ 
ganism would have fallen to pieces in the long 
ago. 

But Satan possesses, vitalizes and sustains 
Paganism. He is its directing head. It in 
turn is his body. Through it he holds as in the 
grip of a vise the most populous nations of 
earth. 

Next we come tq the Beast. This is the Pope 
of Rome. He is “The Man of sin”, “The Son 
of perdition”, “The Anti-Christ”. Like the 
other two, we have here a body with a personal, 
directing head. Each is a complete religion 
within itself. Each is a religion that is in an¬ 
tagonism to the pure spirit of Christianity. 
They are all alike subversive of the true 
Christian religion. 


326 FostmilSenniaSism and The Higher Critics 

Now look at their extent. Speaking in round 
numbers, there are on earth about one billion, 
six hundred and fifty millions of people. Of 
these about one half, or eight hundred and 
twenty-five millions, are Pagans; some four 
hundred millions are Catholics, Greek or Rom¬ 
an. Of the rest, about two hundred millions 
are Mohammedans, followers of the False Pro¬ 
phet. This*leaves only two hundred and twen¬ 
ty-five millions of Protestants. But this does 
not mean that there are two hundred and twen¬ 
ty-five millions of real Christians, of those 
who sincerely love the Lord Jesus. The reli¬ 
gion of Jesus cannot be nationalized. One can 
be a Pagan, a Mohammedan, or a Romanist, 
by birth and nationality, and not undergo any 
moral change. But to be a Christian, one must 
be born again; he must obtain a new heart, and 
be transformed by the Spirit of God into a new 
cieature. Very few Protestants even are vital 
Christians; such as have passed from death un¬ 
to life, by the regenerating and sanctifying 
grace of God. 

Postmillennialists with a blind and unreason¬ 
able optimism are singing and preaching, 

“We’ll take the world for God”. But in fact, 
many of the noisiest of them have not had a 
conversion under their ministry for years. Fre¬ 
quently their own families reproach them by 
their vices and open sins. 


Where Posimillesmialism Utterly Fails 327 

You will take the world for God, will you? 
Then let us see some signs of your capacity. 
With more than fourteen hundred millions of 
souls under the dark power and in the terrible 
clutches of Paganism, Popery, and Mohammed¬ 
anism, a man must be very optimistic, very eas¬ 
ily satisfied indeed, who thinks the Church is 
making any great headway toward converting 
the world. Paganism holds China’s four hun¬ 
dred millions in its grasp, besides the millions 
of Japan, Korea, India and Africa. Popery ex¬ 
tends the sway of its conscienceless idolatry 
over Italy, France, Belgium, Austria, Hungary, 
Poland, Spain, Portugal and, coming to the 
western hemisphere, its blighting power is seen 
in the Central American States and in all South 
America. Furthermore, it has a terrible grip on 
Germany, England and the United States—the 
only great Protestant nations. Mohammedan¬ 
ism dominates Turkey, Palestine, Syria, Arabia, 
sixty millions of India, and vast areas in Africa, 
and in Russia and smaller nations. The terri¬ 
tories where Christianity was first planted at 
present bow before the bloody scepter of Mo¬ 
hammed or kiss the idol cross of the Roman 
Driest. 

As to storming these strongholds of sin and 
of the triune powers of hell, we are not so much 
as scratching the surface. For every single 
convert won to Christ, it is conservative to say 
that ten babies are born to Paganism, Popery 


328 Postmiilennialism and Tho Higher Critics 

and Mohammedanism. Thus the Dragon, the 
Antichrist and the False Prophet, hold the bulk 
of the world in their grasp, while the few fol¬ 
lowers of Christ are struggling to enlighten 
some souls and gather out of the sin-marshes 
of earth the pure and holy Bride of the Lamb. 

Our postmillennial friends in an effort to 
make an encouraging showing, list every beer 
and wine soaked and tobacco-pickled priest of 
Rome as a Christian clergyman. These blasphe¬ 
mous sinners make a god for their own wor¬ 
ship and that of their people out of a dry 
wafer, and then proceed to devour him entire. 
They shut up women by thousands in their 
harems of iniquity, and come forth from their 
dens of lust to tell the deluded victims in their 
confessionals, “I absolve you”. How can one 
sinner forgive another? How can a blasphem¬ 
ous, ungodly priest fill the place of Jesus 
Christ and forgive the sins of men? 

Roman Catholicism is no more Christian¬ 
ity than is Paganism or Mohammedanism. It 
is shot through and through with vice and im¬ 
morality, with lust and avarice, with selfishness 
and political rottenness, while its priests are 
coveteous seekers after pelf and power. Sa¬ 
loon-keepers, gamblers, Sabbath-breakers, Bi- 
ble-burners and image-worshipers are perfect¬ 
ly at home in the ranks of the Beast, the False 
Prophet and the Dragon. Christianity cannot 
compromise with any of these—nor can the 


Where Postmlilennialism Utterly Fails 329 

Church destroy them; hut they shall by and by 
be utterly annihilated. Paul says of “the man 
of sin” that the Lord shall destroy him with the 
brightness of his appearing. 

It is when Jesus rides forth from Heaven as 
King of all kings that He captures this trinity 
of evil and completely routs their armies. When 
the beast, the Antichrist, is captured and thrust 
into the lake of fire, his body, the Roman 
church, will disintegrate. In like manner, when 
the head of Mohammedanism, the False Pro¬ 
phet, is cast into the fiery lake, his body,the Mo¬ 
hammedan system, also shall disintegrate. Then 
when the Dragon is seized and incarcerated for 
a thousand years in the bottomless pit, his body, 
Paganism, also shall fall to pieces. 

When the coming King of Glory shall thus 
destroy His rivals, Satan and his chief lieuten¬ 
ants, with their armies, their bodies will dis¬ 
solve, their victims will be set free, and the 
poor people, so long enslaved by sin and false 
religions, will acknowledge Jesus as Lord, and 
bow in willing submission. How the gospel will 
spread then! What marvelous triumphs of 
truth! What sweeping revivals! It will be won¬ 
derful indeed to see the teaming millions turn¬ 
ing from these delusive systems of error to the 
glorious light of Christ. 

Our Master once said, “When a strong man 
armed keepeth his house ye cannot spoil his 
goods”. And for nineteen centuries we have 


330 Postmiilennialism and The Higher Critics 

seen this demonstrated. However, “When a 
stronger than he cometh, and bindeth him, then 
ye will spoil his house.” When the Lord of 
heaven and earth shall bind Satan and cast him 
into the pit I expect to preach the gospel of 
“holiness unto the Lord,” in Mohammedan 
mosques, in Pagan temples, and in Roman 
Catholic Cathedrals. Then truly the strong 
man’s house shall be spoiled and his victims 
set free; and he whom the Son maketh free, 
shall be free indeed. (John 8:36). 

The postmillennialists cannot bind and cast 
out the Devil. 

Failure number one, 

They cannot cast the False Prophet into the 
lake of fire. 

Failure number two, 

They cannot destroy the beast or thrust him 
into the lake of fire. 

Failure number three, 

They cannot make an end to wars. This 
they have often promised, but have never per¬ 
formed. 

Failure number four. 

They cannot disintegrate Judaism and bring 
the descendants of Jacob to the light of Christ. 
Despite all their efforts, the Jews yet reject our 
Savior. 

Failure number five. 

They have promised us a church that is holy, 


Where Posimiliennialism Utterly Fails 331 

free from formalism and spiritual deadness, but 
this remains as yet unaccomplished. 

Failure number six. 

Earth is to be redeemed, filled with the 
knowledge and glory of God. The postmil- 
lennialists think themselves equal to the task 
but to this day it remains unaccomplished. 
Failure number seven. 

Disease and death are to be banished. The 
time is to come when“the inhabitant shall not 
say, I am sick”. The postmillennialist does 
not feel the need of the presence of the person¬ 
al Jesus; hence this is his job. But it remains 
unaccomplished. 

Failure number eight. 

A good day lies ahead when, “the wilder¬ 
ness and the solitary place shall be glad for 
them: and the desert shall rejoice and blos¬ 
som as the rose”. We expect this to ;be ac¬ 
complished when Jesus comes. But the post- 
millennialists promise all triumphs foretold in 
scripture prior to the coming of our Lord. They 
have not as yet accomplished this; nor do the 
signs look very propitious. 

Failure number nine. 

The fact is, postmillennialism abounds in 
promise, and is most noted for failure in per¬ 
formance. It has mapped out too big a job 
for itself. Of Papal origin, it is a huge and 
unscriptural blunder. Its chief captains are 
today denying the inspiration of large sections 


332 PoslsnHIenmaiism and The Higher Critics 

of God’s Word. Our Christ shall perform 
everything promised in the holy Book. He shall 
triumph over all His foes, and over all fallacious 
teachings of men who are v/ise above that which 
is written. Our Jesus is the Prince of premil- 
lennralist, as He is the Prince of peace; and 
He shall return again in the clouds with pow¬ 
er and great glory. Let us so live that we 
may be ready to welcome Him, whether His 
coming be at morning, noon or night. 

Hail! Ail Hail to the King! 

OBJECTIONS TO POSTMILLENNIALISM 

1. It exalts the human; along with Socialism 
and popery it practically deifies man. It is 
based on the propostion,, “We will take the 
world for God.” Up to this time, they have 
shown very little fruits to their credit. 

2. it is of papal origin. What use has the 
Pope for a returning Christ? No more than 
any other postmillennialist. He believes him¬ 
self and his resources all-sufficient to take, con¬ 
trol and direct the world, 'and hence he does 
not desire the personal presence of Jesus as 
King. Whoever heard of a premillennial 
pope? 

3. It overlooks the presence and power of 
the three great enemies, the dragon, the beast, 
and the false prophet. While these vicious 
forces continue, no human power can prevail 
against them or effect their overthrow. Post- 
millennialists have no solution of this problem. 


Where Postmillenmalism Utterly Fails 333 

They do not reckon very definitely with this 
infernal trinity. But the Bible deals specifi¬ 
cally with them, pledging their complete over¬ 
throw just before the inauguration of the mil- 
lenium. (Rev. 19: 20-20: 1-3.). No system 
of theology or eschatology can solve the pro¬ 
blem of earth’s redemption that fails to reckon 
with this trintiy of Hell. 

4. Postmiilennialism has no explanation of the 
fact that for all these centuries since the birth 
of Jesus, so little headway has been made. 
There is not a converted nation, state, province, 
county, town or even village on earth. The 
postmillennialists have a scheme to save the 
world that, though tried already for nineteen 
centuries, has not yet saved a village. Still 
they picture in roseate hues a redeemed world. 
They glory in their optimism, reminding one of 
a blind man, boasting of his marvelous vision, 
or of a pigmy vociferously proclaiming his her¬ 
culean powers. As the Ephesians with deafen¬ 
ing roar for two hours yelled, “Great is Diana 
of the Ephesians”, utterly blind to the futility 
of their cry and the powerlessness of their god¬ 
dess; so our postmillennial preachers in glow¬ 
ing periods and flowery orations proclaim a 
converted world, whereas, according to St. 
John, “The whole world lieth in wickedness”. 
(1 John 5:19). Even those sections of the 
world where the gospel’s earliest triumphs were 
recorded are now overgrown with the noxious 


334 PostmillenAlalism znd The Higher Critics 


weeds of popery, or blighted by the bloody 
hordes of the False Prophet. 

Great is Diana of the Ephesians!— Ah! we 
mean, Great is the postmillennialism of Snow¬ 
den, Rail, Mains and the Pope! 

It really looks as if a theory showing such 
meager results after centuries of testing would 
be discarded by thoughtful men. 

Paganism evidently has more adherents than 
when the Man of Galilee walked in Judea. 
Popery had not then been launched upon the 
world; nor had Mohammedanism been born. 
Today these twin evils have some six hundred 
millions of dupes, while paganism holds its 
deadening grip upon eight hundred millions. It 
is stronger today than at the beginning of the 
Christian Era, and has been re-inforced by those 
twins of hellish origin, Islam and Romanism. 
So the devil has a mightier grasp at the present 
day than two millenniums since. Still, as if 
utterly oblivious to these facts, men of edu¬ 
cation are bending their energies to fasten upon 
the church a fallacious and unscriptural dogma, 
that has proven its insufficiency and falsehood 
by results. “Then”, says one, “the gospel 
is a failure”. No; it can and does save all who 
reverently and in faith accept it. But it has 
never broken the power of Hell’s trinity; nor 
does it promise to do so. But God, in person 
of the Divine Man, does promise this complete 
triumph—and He will win, . 


Where Postinillennsalism Utterly Fails 335 

5. Regardless of the Word of God, the post- 
millennial theorists are .continually boasting of 
the spread and the triumph of the church. But 
Jesus shall smash their house of cards, over¬ 
throw their vain imaginings, return in glory and 
set up His own everlasting Kingdom, reigning 
without a rival. 

With all their futile fancies, our friends Snow¬ 
den, in Pittsburgh, and Rail in Chicago, are 
compassed about with such wickedness as would 
make Sodom and Gomorrah turn pale. If they 
possess such a regnant and winning gospel, why 
do they not demonstrate its power in the thor¬ 
ough evangelization of the godless cities in 
which they reside? 

IMPORTANT 

I wish all our readers would bear in mind 
the following truths as a sufficient answer to 
all that Rail and others have to say about the 
sufficiency of the gospel to save the world, and 
about premillennialists minifying the gospel and 
dishonoring the Holy Spirit. 

1. The grace of God will still continue through 
the tribulation and the millennium. Jesus wall 
not only be a King but a Priest, after He takes 
the throne. (Zech. 6:13). Nor does He “sit 
on the throne of His glory” till His return. 
(Matt. 25:31). He is now on His Father’s 
throne. (Rev. 3:21). 


336 Postmillennialism and The Higher Critics 

2. Some people say the Spirit will be with¬ 
drawn from the earth at the coming of Jesus, 
after which no one will be saved. The Bible 
corrects this. Millions will be saved in the 
great tribulation, and be slain by the Beast (the 
Antichrist) because they will not worship his 
image. (Rev. 7:9-14; 13:14,15). These are 
the ones who are raised from the dead and reign 
after Satan’s overthrow. (Rev. 20:1-4). 

T The Jews accept Jesus at the close of th? 
great tribulation. (Jer. 30:7; Zech. 13:8,9). 
They are then saved. (Rom. 11:12,15,25,26). 

This, you see, is at the close -of the Gentile 
times. (Luke 21:24-36). The kingdom thus 
established shall never pass away. (Ezek. 37: 
22-27). 

4. The Gentiles will also then be saved, even 
‘‘the residue of men”, after the tabernacle of 
David is rebuilt. (Acts 15:13-18). 

5. The Spirit will be poured out then. (Ezek. 
36:27). He will be “the power” in the world 
(age) to come; whereas now we only have a 
“taste” of His operations. (Heb. 6: 4,5.) 

6. Then shall earth be filled with His glory. 
(Heb 2:14). That millennial age will have all 
the evangelistic agencies we now possess, 
every uplifting and regenerating influence that 
operates at present. And ali this without the 
counteracting and destructive presence of Satan, 
the Antichrist and the False Prophet. 


Where Postmiliennialism Utterly Fails 337 

Let no postmillennialist confuse you for one 
moment with his Babel chatter about “the pre- 
millennialists dishonoring the Holy Spirit”; and 
“minifying the gospel,” as though we must 
have Satan and all his evil forces here in order 
tiiat the gospel might operate in saving men. 
Jesus informs us that when the strong man is 
bound by a stronger than he, you can spoil his 
house. (Matt. 12:29; Rev.20: 1-3). It will 
be observed that my references above are not 
all from Revelation 20. They come from 
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Habakkuk, Eze¬ 
kiel John, James, Paul, Author of Hebrews, 
and Jesus Himself. Are they not good authori¬ 
ty, even for a postmillennial critic? 


L. L. P. 


CHAPTER XIV 
A REVIEW ARTICLE 


I have before me, an article in The Methodist 
Review, May-June, 1921, by Irwin Ross Beiler, 
of Allegheny College, Meadville, Pa. His ar¬ 
ticle is entitled “The New Testament Basis of 
Premillennialism”. Mr. Beiler says, “So far as 
the Bible is concerned millenarianism rests upon 
Revelation 20. Beyond that chapter it is 
propped up by a type of biblical interpreta¬ 
tion—an assembling of every phrase or text 
that can be bent to the desired purpose, and a 
contempt for contexts and historical back¬ 
grounds, that turns exegesis into guesswork— 
which has provided us with scriptural defenses 
of war, slavery, polygamy, witchcraft, the li¬ 
quor traffic, and military preparedness. This 
chapter of the book of Revelation is full of 
poetic imagery which we have often interpret¬ 
ed as prose.” Then mentioning the work of 
Seiss and others, whose scholarship,he says, 
cannot be compared with that of Weiss, Swete, 
Moffatt and Charles, he adds “this latter group 
of interpreters agree that, to say the least, this 
chapter in its origin is not Christian”. He then 
proceeds to indicate that John got his material 
from Egyptian, Parsee, Greek and Jewish es¬ 
chatological writings. 

Thus our Review writer seems to have no 
hesitancy in undermining the divine authority 


Where PosimOkanialisin Utterly Falls 
cl John and his Book of Revelation. 


339 

Has it 


never occurred to Mr. Beiler that in casting 
aoubt on John’s work in the Apocalypse he 
discounts him as an author and thus under¬ 
mines the Gospel and the Epistles credited to 
his authorship? Mr. Beiler has one of the au¬ 
thors whom he accepts as of high standing and 


real worth comparing John’s writing in the 
Book of Revelation with the “Egyptian Book 
of the Dead,” also with “Parsee or Zoroastri- 
an literature.” He has much to say that would 
discredit the writings of the disciple whom 


Jesus loved. 

Not satisfied with discounting John, the Re¬ 
view writer must take his fling at Paul. He 
says, “Suppose Paul had the view that Christ 
was to return to rule for a period. Where did 
he get it? Evidently Paul had taught the 
Thessalonians that Christ would soon return 
and writes them, not only to change conditions 
that teaching had created, but also, doubtless, to 
correct his earlier teaching.” He then tries to 
confuse the reader,, as he seems to be confused 
himself, as to whether Paul were writing con¬ 
cerning the indwelling of Christ or the coming 
of the King of Glory. Now I submit that any 
intelligent reader will have no trouble when 
reading the Epistles of Paul to distinguish be¬ 
tween the in-dwelling of Christ and the return 
of the Son of Man. For example, Paul tells us 
in Ephesians (3:17) that “Christ may dwell in 


340 Postmillennialism and The Higher Critic* 

your hearts by faith”. This is simple and easily 
understood. The experience to which he refers 
is clearly that of the divine indwelling. But in 
Thessalonians (4:16,17) he portrays the re¬ 
turn of the Lord Jesus in His proper human¬ 
ity. 

Elsewhere the writer says, “that Paul re¬ 
flects the influence of the non-canonical and 
other than Christian writings has long been 
known, and much is yet to be written on that 
subject. For example, the conception that death 
is a product of sin is frequently found in Paul. 
(Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:21; and 2 Cor. 11:3.) 
Otherwise it is not a New Testament idea and 
is probably lacking in the Old Testament.” 
Again he says, “these conceptions of a plurality 
of heavens, and death as ,a product of sin, the 
church has sloughed off as part of an outgrown 
thought-world. That Paul believed them has not 
troubled her, for she has seen that they are 
purely accessories and in no wise fundamental 
or distinctive in his message. This applies with 
equal force to Paul’s premillennial thought. 
Along with the observation that the parousia 
was far from central in Paul’s teaching, the 
point of value to be noted in all this is that this 
view reached him by the same pi e-Christian and 
reached him by the 'same pre-Christian and 
extra-biblical influences ^reflected in Revela¬ 
tion 20.” 

These are remarkable utterances from a Pro- 


Where Postmiilennialism Utterly Fails 341 

fessor in a Theological school. He places him¬ 
self in an attitude of superiority to both John 
and Paul. It does not seem to occur to him as 
a thing incongruous for a man to be employed 
by Church auhorities and paid with Church 
money to teach the Bible as an inspired Book, to 
array himself against the authority of two bib¬ 
lical writers, and they the authors of about nine¬ 
teen of the twenty-seven books of the New' 
Testament. I insist that the books of the Bible 
were written by inspiration; that they contain 
the message from God to man; that these books 
do not have their roots in Pagan or Pre-Christ¬ 
ian Apocalyptics. Futhermore, I insist that no 
school, especially a Theological school, should 
employ as a teacher of the Bible a man who 
discounts the divine origin of the Book and the 
authority of the writers who produced it. An 
emasculated Bible means an emasculated gos¬ 
pel, and an emasculated gospel means an emas¬ 
culated church. The Church of the living God 
has not “sloughed oiT” the teachings of Paul, 
nor the inspiration of the Bible. This is rather 
the action of a lot of skeptical professors. 

Beiler concedes that Paul was a premillen- 
niaiist; but spurns his authority, along with that 
of St. John. This discounts the standing of 
Paul to such an extent that nothing he says may 
be considered as of binding authority. Indeed, 
this is not his atitude towards Paul and John 
only, but, as might be expected, towards all 


342 PcstmlHennialism and The Higher Critics 

other New Testament writers. For proof, note 
the following: 

He charges that Paul in 1 Thessalonians (4: 
15-17) “Quotes no known Word of Jesus”, 
“and that the passage does not even bear the 
stamp of his spirit”. “However”, he adds, 
“there is some basis for believing that Jesus 
taught that he would soon come, presumably 
for such a purpose as is involved in premillen- 
nialism”. He then quotes Matthew (10:23), 
Mark (9:1), Luke (2 1:20), Mark (13:26), 
also 14:62), and Matthew (24:29). * 

Now Mr. Beiler, proceeds to ask, “How shall 
we harmonize these statements with each 
other? No one coming of Jesus would meet 
the requirements.” Thus this theological pro¬ 
fessor not only places Paul in an attitude of 
confusion on premillennialism, but he even has 
Jesus himself giving utterance to contradictory 
statements. He quotes approvingly from 
Stevens, who says, “There are about three pos¬ 
sible solutions to the problem, a. Jesus expected 
to return soon, (but was mistaken. b Jesus’ 
disciples and hearers misunderstood Him on this 
theme, He used current imagery and terms in 
which His listeners saw only their own views.” 
He proceeds to say that the disciples did not 


“'"Footnote—We will not reprint these script¬ 
ures, since we have quoted and explained them 
on other pages. See Textual Index. * • 



Where Postmiliennialism Utterly Fails 343 

write down the Master’s utterances at the time. 
They held these sayings only as traditions and 
as might have been expected, Professor Beiler 
adds, “Such traditions inevitably grow.” 

Thus we find that no confidence may be 
placed in the writings of Matthew, Mark, or 
Luke. So these New Testament writers are rel¬ 
egated to the waste-basket ,along with John 
and Paul. Then he adds: c “Jesus meant 
that His coming would be spiritual or contin¬ 
uous”. In development of this thought he 
says, “It is argued that he did come in the work 
of the twelve and the seventy, that he did come 
with the fall of Jerusalem, which completed 
Christianity’s emancipation from Judiasm, and 
that he did come when the suffering and death 
on the cross gave him a new power in the life 
of human kind. In like manner he has been 
coming ever since.” 

To say that the coming of Jesus is fulfilled 
continuously in a series of earthly incidents is 
puerile. Indeed, it is puerility gone to seed. 
Against such nonsense we place the following 
from Bishop Merrill: “This coming in his 
glory, and all the holy angels with him, can be 
nothing other than his personal coming—His 
coming in the clouds of heaven with power and 
great glory.” (pp 127, 128). In speaking of 
the figurative, or spiritual, coming, the Bishop 
says, “There is no consistency in it, and the 
foundation is taken away in the showing that 


344 Poetmiliennialism and The Higher Critics 

there was no such thing as a ‘figurative’ advent 
at the time Jerusalem was destroyed. The life 
of liberalism is centered in that figurative com¬ 
ing of Christ, which it affirms took place when 
and where Christ himself so emphatically said, 
“If any man say, lo, here is Christ, or lo, there, 
believe it not” (pp. 134,135). On another 
page he says, “This figment of a figurative 
coming is not only without foundation, but is 
contradicted by every word the Savior uttered 
in relation to his coming.” (p. 84). 

Bishop Merrill was a postmillennialist; but 
he was not an infidel. He did not seek to 
undermine and destroy the divine inspiration 
of the Bible. To him, God spoke through its 
pages, and they were not written by a lot of 
blundering boobies. 

Professor Beiler proceeds to ask, “How shall 
we reconcile these statemens with the facts of 
history?” He then goes on to say, “Either 
Jesus predicted what did not happen, or what 
must be shown to have happened. Obvious it 
is, that he did not come as his hearers under¬ 
stood him to say he would come. Was Jesus 
mistaken or (was he) misunderstood? That 
is an inescapable alternative. Which is the 
more likely?” 

This is the limit. If this writer is correct, 
Jesus either testified falsely, or in such a blun- 
ering way that He could not be understood; else 
His disciples, who were divinely-entrusted to 


Where Postmillennialism Utterly Fails 345 

write the records of His life, were such ignor¬ 
amuses that they could not relate the simplest 
kind of utterances with accuracy. If this theolo¬ 
gical teacher is correct, then the Bible is an 
absolutely untrustworthy and unreliable book. 
If he is right, so is Bob Ingersoll. Bob wrote of 
the mistakes of Moses, and Beiler writes of the 
mistakes of Matthew, and even of Jesus. Bob 
rejected Genesis, while Beiler rejects Revela¬ 
tion. Bob sought to discredit the Old Testa¬ 
ment; while Beiler discredits the New. 

Brethren, this is alarming! It is scandalous! 
It is wicked. The Methodists of the land should 
arise in righteous wrath, administer a withering 
rebuke, and drive these infidels from positions 
of influence and power. 

The question is pertinent. Whom have we 
left? Paul, John, Matthew, Luke, Mark are 
swept into the discard. Not even Jesus remains 
unimpeached by this teacher of the Bible in a 
Church school—a school for which a campaign 
is even now (June, 1921) being waged to in¬ 
duce the Methodists to contribute $1,500,000. 
00. And what may be expected as the legiti¬ 
mate outcome? Why, simply that their sons 
and daughters being sent to college for a “Chris¬ 
tian education”, shall be returned to them, edu¬ 
cated skeptics. 

Speaking of such teaching as Mr. Beiler gets 
off above, Rev. Geo. P. Eckman., himself a 
postmillennialist, says, “The teachings of the 


348 Postmillennialbm &nd The Higher Critics 


New Testament, above all other reasons which 
can be assigned, have convinced believers that 
the doctrine of the second advent is true. Each 
of the four Gospels contains it, though it is most 
prominent in the first three. It is found in all 
the epistles of Paul with tv/o exceptions. The 
epistles of James, Peter and John affirm it. It 
is clearly taught in the epistles to the Hebrews. 
The Revelation of John is full of it. 

“It is possible to discredit these writers, if 
one has the will to do it; but it is not possible 
to deny what they wrote. They plainly declare 
that Jesus said he was coming again. *** The 
New Testament writers use chiefly those words 
which are most suitable to the idea of a person¬ 
al, visible, bodily return of our Lord.” (The 
Return of the Redeemer, p. 24). Thus one 
opponent of premillennialism destroys the 
teaching of another. And this is common. 

* Unless those who have faith in God rebuke 
this iniquity there will be a fearful harvest in 
the future. Personally, I believe that those 
who have contributed to the building and en¬ 
dowment of our colleges should demand the 
expulsion of all these infidels from our schools. 

If it cannot be done otherwise, let suits be in- 
's'.lluted in the courts of the land,'that these 
perverters of our faith may be driven from their 
strongholds. Money raised in the name of 
“Christian Education” and spent for the support 
of the rationalistic critics is misappropriated. 


Where Postmillenmalism Utterly Fails 34 i 

When raised in the name of Christ and spent to 
undermine the Word of the living God, it may 
be safely and truly charged that the money was 
collected under false pretenses. The authorities 
who thus expend the tithes of the people of God 
are guilty before High Heaven of misappro¬ 
priating funds. Let doners assert themselves 
and demand the expulsion of every evolutionist 
and every higher critic from the faculties of all 
church schools. Failing to drive these enemies 
of the faith from places of learning and power, 
then demand the return of your money and 
apply it to those schools that stand for the 
faith. 


Beiler and his like do not hesitate to under¬ 
mine the inspiration of God’s Word in order 
to vent their spleen on premillennialism. And 
this kind of critical stuff is not only taught in 
Alleghany College, and other church schools 
and theological seminaries, but it also has space 
in many church papers, some Sunday School 
periodicals, and is being spread through the 
ranks of the Methodist ministry by the “Metho¬ 
dist Review”, the Editor of which is reported 
to have said before the Detroit conference, that 
“premillennialism is a doctrine of devils”. To 
say the least, it is not a doctrine of the des¬ 
tructive critics; it is not a doctrine of the Pope; 
nor is it a doctrine of infidels. The Bible either 
is an inspired book, or it is not. It contains an 



348 Postmiliennialisrn and The Higher Critic* 

inerrant message of the skies or it is a con¬ 
glomeration of human vagaries. If postmillen- 
nialism is dependent for its defense upon the 
infidelizing of the ministry, the sooner it is 
swept from the field, the better. 

The Meadville Professor says, ‘There is in 
the gospels a different conception of the coming 
of the kingdom, which has too often been neg¬ 
lected in the treatment of this theme. It teach¬ 
es that the kingdom is to come gradually, to 
grow, develop”. Then he quotes several scrip¬ 
tures, viz., Mark (4:28,31), Matthew (13:33), 
and Luke (17:20). The quotation from Luke 
has been fully discussed at another place in this 
book, which see. As to the growth of the 
kingdom like unto the development of the corn, 
“the blade, the ear, and the full corn in the 
ear”, there is no controversy. It is accepted 
as a fact; because the Master used the illustra¬ 
tion; and what He says goes without question. 
And there is no conflict in this with any thought 
in the mind of the writer. The subject of the 
kingdom is treated helpfully and at some length 
in these pages. Suffice it to say here: The 
kingdom of God is in the world today in a 
hidden and unrevealed form. Every real Christ¬ 
ian, every person who is regenerated, holds 
membership in that kingdom. It is as an un¬ 
born child, possessing personality and life, but 
hidden away in the person of its mother. There, 
unseen by human eyes, it grows and develops 


Where Posimiilenmalism Utterly Fails 349 

until the day comes when by birth it shall come 
forth to the light of day and be open to the 
vision of men. It grows before the day of its 
birth and continues to grow even more rapidly 
afterward. The kingdom of God, which is 
righteousness and joy and peace, like the un¬ 
born babe cometh not, as yet, “with observa¬ 
tion”. 

When the Master said that some were stand¬ 
ing present who should not die till they should 
see Him coming in His kingdom, He made the 
visibility of the kingdom to fee a part of the 
scene foretold. They should see not only the 
Son of man, but “the Son of man IN HIS KING¬ 
DOM.” We have already shown that this had 
its fulfillment on the mount of transfiguration. 
Jesus in one place describes Himself coming “in 
the clouds, with power and great glory,” and 
presently adds, “When ye see these things come 
to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is 
nigh at hand.” (Luke 21:27,31). Thus the 
kingdom that is now developing, as the blade 
and the immature ear is hastening forward to 
the time of its breaking over the earth in glory. 
Then it can be truly said, “The (visible) king¬ 
dom of this world are become the kingdom 
of our iLord and liis Christ; and He shall 
reign forever and ever.” (Rev. 11:15) 

Nowhere in the New Testament is the sec- 
cond coming of Jesus spoken of as invisible; but 
it is declared by Himself and many inspired 
writers to be visible. L. L. P. 


CHAPTER XV 

CONDITIONS IN METHODISM. 


The writer is a Methodist preacher of nearly 
fifty years. He naturally is concerned over the 
attitude of Methodist leadership toward our 
Lord’s return, and toward the rationalistic crit¬ 
icism, now so rife in the scholastic world. 

The affirmation of the Wesleys that they 
were thrust out to raise up a holy people, and 
the fundamental declaration that the licly 
Scriptures contain all things necessary to sal¬ 
vation, and the song of Charles Wesley, 
“Christ appears on earth to reign”, ought to 
settle the attitude of the people called Metho¬ 
dists to these questions. 

But as in older days a king arose in Egypt 
who knew not Joseph, so now men have gotten 
into the Mehodist ranks and have risen to 
place and power who know not nor respect 
Methodism. 

Many men in high places are repudiating 
those doctrines and practices that made origin¬ 
al Methodism the power she was. 

They are rejecting the divine origin and in¬ 
fallible authority of the Bible. Some of them 
are denying the Virgin birth and diety of Jesus 
Christ. Their religion is devoid of the super¬ 
natural. 

Along with this, they are tabooing the life of 
vital and experimental holiness or perfect love, 


Conditions in Methodism. 


351 


and as a corollary of this they are ceasing to 
preach repentance, judgment and hell, person¬ 
al regeneration, and the joyous knowledge of 
sins forgiven, v/ith the clear witness of the 
Spirit thereto. 

Definite “know-so” conversions, as well as 
sanctifications, are unknown under their minis¬ 
try and as a substitute, they have joined Rome 
in observing Lent, and have extensive pro¬ 
grams culminating in “decision days”, thus fill¬ 
ing the church with unregenerated worldlings, 
who dance, play cards, attend theaters and 
dike themselves out in jewelry, lodge regalia 
and the trappings of French fashions and other 
worldly things. 

These people are greatly perturbed over the 
preaching of -our Lord’s near return; well they 
may be. Their vanities and false teachings will 
cover them with confusion and shame in the 
day of the King’s radiant appearing. 

A bunch of men in high place in Methodist 
ranks are doing their best to annihilate premil- 
lennialism. 

1. In the schools. 

Here they are teaching German rationalistic 
theology, that undermines faith in the Bible, 
and they are turning loose on the church a 
school of theological sceptics and supercilious 
high-brows who think it a mark of superior in¬ 
telligence to preach the so-called “discoveries 
of scholarship”, and that “all men of culture be- 


352 Postmillennialism and The Higher Critics 

lieve in evolution”. To them a Bible that is 
accurate, perfectly reliable, inspired of God and 
absolutely true, is a relic of medievalism, ac¬ 
cepted only by the ignorant, by poor illiterates 
“who have not had the advantages of the high¬ 
er culture”, in whose effulgent beams they, 
forsooth, constantly abide. 

II. In church literature. 

These men have come into control of the 
publishing houses and are pouring out on the 
church a line of books, at least tinged, if not 
filled, with sceptical questions, and especially 
are the books numerous against the glorious 
premillennial truths of the Bible. 

Whole pages of church papers are devoted 
to advertising and favorably reviewing books 
advocating a jumble of preterism, such as 
Campbell’s and Goff’s, reviewed in these pages, 
and postmillennialism, such as several we here 
review. 

Almost any sort of a writer can get space in 
these church organs to present postmillennial¬ 
ism, whereas a reply, or a straight presentation 
of premillennial doctrine, is very promptly 
returned to the writer, or (unceremoniously 
dumped into the waste basket. 

I once sent a small ad. of one of my books, 
“The Blessed hope of His Glorious Appearing”, 
to one of the official Christian Advocates, ask¬ 
ed them to insert for a number of times and 
that the bill be sent to me; but it was rejected, 


353 


Conditions in Methodism. 

and I was notified that books of that kind—ad¬ 
vocating premillennalism—could not be adver¬ 
tized even for pay in the Christian Advocate. 

O no, but they run ads of jewelry and Lodge 
pins, of the late novels; also of books full of 
rationalism, that destroy faith in the Bible and 
in our Lord's return. 

Seeing but recently a small book commended 
strongly by a well known missionary, “Is Jesus 
coming ’soon?” by W. H. Nelson, I promptly 
ordered a copy from the Southern Methodist 
Publishing House. 

Having read this well-boosted booklet I will 
give our readers a few samples of its teachings. 

On page three he says of the postmillennial- 
ists, of whom he is one- “They believe that the 
gospel and the Holy Spirit will finally overcome 
the world of evil and that in God’s own time, 
which has never been revealed to man, Christ 
will come to the world in judgment. Their 
idea of Christ’s coming to the earth to reign is 
that He comes spiritually.” 

So Mr. Nelson’s view is that our Lord’s sec¬ 
ond coming, or advent, “is a spiritual coming.” 

In confirmation of this “spiritual coming” he 
says, “The fourth Gospel differs in tone and 
expresson from the synoptists (Matthew, Mark, 
and Luke) regarding the second coming. In 
John it is not an earthly, material coming; it 
is a spiritual. The Jewish conception, we must 


354 Postmillennicdism and The Higher Critics 

confess is largely evident in the synoptists.” 
Then approving what he considers John’s view, 
he says that, “In the fourteenth of John, we 
have a picture of the coming of the heavenly 
Trinity.” In verse 16 Christ speaks of the ‘com¬ 
ing’ of the Holy Spirit, in verse 18 he speaks 
of the ‘coming’ of both his Father and himself. 
Christ speaks of a resurrection of the good and 
the (bad on the last day, who raised by his 
voice.” (pp 67). 

The reader will observe here - 

1. Mr. Nelson has the first of these thre* 
Gospels to be poisoned by Judaistic influences; 
but to his mind John is all right. 

What kind of inspiration has Mr. Nelson’s 
New Testament? Is it possible that three out 
of four New Testament Gospels are unreliable? 

2. But John receives Nelson’s O. K., 
Strange! We venture a guess that we can 
point out sayings in John’s writings that he 
would more certainly repudiate than those of 
the synoptists. 

Notice verse three of this same fourteenth of 
John; “I go to prepare a place for you, and if 
I go and prepare a place for you, I will come 
again and receive you unto myself; that where 
I am there ye may be also”. This is not a 
Spiritual coming, but a personal return to gather 
up His faithful into a place prepared for them, 
such as is described by Paul in I Thess. 4. And 
this occurs at the Lord’s decent from heaven. 


Conditions in Methodism, 


355 


Furthermore, John wrote the Apocalypse, 
most definite of all writings on Jesus’ second 
coming, including the thousand year period. 

If John should write differently from Mat¬ 
thew, Mark, and Luke, it would be a poor 
commentary on the guiding hand of God in the 
preparation of the Bible. Just so with Paul; 
if he had to drop the teachings of the first epis¬ 
tles in his later productions, because of errors 
in his earlier views how much did God have to 
do with any of his writings? Shame on such 
utterances; and from a preacher! Yes, sir, Mr. 
Nelson actually says, “There is no doubt but 
St. Paul’s earlier views were decidedly Jewish, 
and predicted a Jewish and literal coming.” 
Whether Jewish or not, these writings are true; 
else they were not inspired of God, and if not 
inspired, they are false, since they claim to be 
God’s word, (2 Tim. 2:15; 3:16; Isa. 8:20; 
Psa. 138:2). God has “magnified His word 
above all His name”, and He will hold men to 
account for minifying it’s heaven-given truths. 
I am tired of preachers trying to make out con¬ 
tradictions between different writers of ,the 
Scriptures. Brethren, leave that to the world’s 
Voltaires, Ingersolls, and Paines. Let clergy¬ 
men preach the Word, rather than dissect and 
butcher it. If not, get out of the ministry and 
leave the Book to those who do believe and 
accept it, without trying to improve upon it. As 
to the coming of the Spirit, why of course He 


3SS PtfstmiHennlaHtm and The Higher Critics 

came at Pentecost, and His coming recurs con¬ 
stantly in the lives of believers; but that only 
prepares one for the coming of the Lord Jesus 
in the clouds. 

1 have dwelt sufficiently in other pages on the 
difference between the indwelling and abiding 
Christ in His deity, and the return of Jesus as 
Son of man to reign on earth. 

Mr. Nelson has much to say about the “time 
table” millennialists, as tho all there was to pre- 
millennialism consisted in setting a date for our 
Lord’s return. Some- have in the past made 
this mistake, but I know of no evangelical 
lover of His appearing who is now setting dates 
for the glorious event; and yet many are stirred 
in their souls with the comforting belief that 
the glad day draweth nigh. Nor will we sur¬ 
render this “blessed hope” at the behest of the 
scoffer fraternity. It was revealed that scoffers 
will appear “in the last days, saying, Where is 
the promise of His coming? ” (2 Peter 3 :3,4). 
So our faith is not weakened by their attacks 
upon the blessed hope, foolish tho they be. 

Mr. Nelson, like others of this school, asserts 
that, “the whole fabric «of millennialism rests 
on Rev. 20.” The simple fact is, as we else¬ 
where show, the millennium is the judgment of 
the living nations, and embraces a period of 
one thousand years. It is the vestibule to the 
endless reign of our Lord in the earth, and is 
pictured in Isa. 65. It is followed by the res- 


Conditions in Methodism, 357 

Urrection of “ the dead small and great”. It no 
more contradicts or clashes with other scriptures 
on the second coming than the Old Testament 
contradicts the New. As the New elucidates 
a?d enlarges on the Old Testament, so the 
twentieth of Revelation develops and elucidates 
scores of other passages on the subject. 

AS TO THE GREAT TRIBULATION 

When one becomes a victim of the postmil- 
lennial delusion he loses a sense of proportion, 
and becomes an unsafe interpreter of facts, as 
the following will show. “It was left to Titus 
to fulfill Matthew 24:21, Then shall be great 
tribulation, such as was not from the beginning 
of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.” 
Starting with this premise, Mr. Nelson goes on 
to tell us that “1,100,000 perished in the siege 
of Jerusalem, and that nearly 100,000 were car¬ 
ried away into captiviy.” And to him this was 
the greatest tribulation in all earth’s history, 
past, present,or future!! Has our brother for¬ 
gotten the flood in Noah’s time? Has he 
overlooked the great wars of Caesar, Genghis 
Kahn and Napoleon? Has he forgotten the 
plague of the 13th century, called “the black 
death” in which twenty-five millions perished? 
Is it possible that the death of 1,100,000 and 
the captivity of 100,000 could surpass that 
fearful plague? How do you figure that? 
But come nearer home. The recent war it is 


353 Fc-stm^lenniaSism and The Higher Critics 


said resulted in the killing of 13,000,000 on 
the battle-fields, and the death or maiming of 
7,000,000 more. But even this is not all. The 
resulting famines and pestilences, which are 
even yet raging, have swept, or apparently will 
sweep, a total of 40 , 000,000 to 5o,000,000 
from the earth. But the exigences of his creed 
leads our brother to consider the perishing of a 
little over one million as a greater tribulation 
than any in all history (?) One would not 
expect this of an intelligent man. Which is to 
be the more pitied, his judgment, or his con¬ 
science? Surely an informed and good man 
would not make such an unbalanced assertion. 

But the Master made two important statements 

▲ 

in this same connection. 

1. Immediately after the tribulation, He said, 
“the Son /of man”, crucified Carpenter of 
Nazareth, risen and ascended Lord, should “be 
seen coming in the clouds of heaven.” Did 
that happen after the overthrow of Jerusalem? 
Jesus said it would “immediately” follow the 
great tribulation. 

2. And “His Angels shall gather together His 
elect”. Did that occur? When? Who saw it? 
If the “elect” are the saints then that was not 
the tribulation, for in that event the earth would 
have been left without any saints. Did that 
happen? If the “elect” are the Jews you know, 
reader, they were not gathered immediately 
after “the destruction of the city, for that was 


359 


Conditions in Methodism. 

the time rather when they were more fully 
scattered. But what do such facts as these 
mean to a creed-bound postmillennialist? It 
reminds me of “Aunt Sallie”, the southern ne- 
gress. After a spell of Camp Meeting shouting 
on her part a friend said, “Aunt Sallie”, aren’t 
you ashamed to shout that way after stealing 
those chickens last week?” “Hhnp, said she, 
You need not think I’se gwine to let as little a 
thing as a chicken come ’tween me an’ my 
Lawd!” And Bro. Nelson is not going to let as 
little a thing as our Lord’s visible appearing in 
the clouds, and the gathering of His elect from 
the ends of the earth, come between him and 
his dearly-loved postmillennial notions! Not 
he. But he has a solution of the Lord’s coming 
“immediately after” the tribulation, and here it 
is: “We believe that Christ came again after 
the destruction of Jerusalem, that He came 
in spiritual power; that all who had eyes to see 
the “coming of the Son of man” and His gospel 
in greater power immediately succeeding that 
event, saw it.” (Page 16). Here He requires 
“Anointed eyes” to see the coming. Did Jesus 
says his? No Sir. Observe how our Lord put it, 
“Then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn; 
and they (not those with anointed eyes, but 
“the mourning tribes”) shall see the Son of 
man coming in the clouds with power and great 

glory.” (Matt., 2*4:31). Now, Brother Nelson, 
had you not better repent before God of your 


360 Postmillennialism and The Higher Critics 

perversion of His Word in the interest of a papal 
creed? Espouse the truth and henceforth preach 
it against all the rationalistic postmillennial 
creedists of the land. Mr. Nelson says that 
John held the spiritual coming Advent idea. 
This might pass with a man who has no Bible. 
But those who possess a copy of the Book will 
likely recall that it was John who wrote, “Be¬ 
hold He cometh with clouds, and every eye 
shall see Him.” We all know that the Divine 
presence is here now and was here before the 
destruction of Jerusalem, even the Pentecost 
outpouring of the Spirit, which occurred 
thirty-seven years before Titus destroyed the 
city. So that Christ’s coming in spiritual power 
was thus a generation before Mr. Nelson’s great 
tribulation, rather than “immediately after” 
that sad event. In the interest of truth, Mr. 
Nelson should see that the plates of his falla¬ 
cious booklet are destroyed, and he should 
publish a retraction. And Bro. Wainright, of 
the mission-field, should recall his endorsement 
of this postmillennial twaddle. The Publish¬ 
ing House of the Methodist Church should clear 
its shelves of such misleading and hurtful stuff. 
God will judge men for perverting His truth. 

L. L. P. 

The writer feels that his space is occupied; 
and yet he has not in anywise done justice 
to the caption of this chapter. He should show 
the attitude of practically all Methodist editors 


Conditions in Methodism. 


361 


to premillennialism. He should show how he 
and others have submitted article after article 
to church organs, the same being nothing ibut 
scriptural discussions of the subject, even con¬ 
taining in some instances scores of scripture 
passages, only to have them rejected. Often 
times tho requesting their return, if not used, 
yet they only found their way to the waste 
basket. 

He would like to give instances where preach¬ 
ers, including well-known and effective trans¬ 
fers, have been rejected by the bishops. Also 
where these functionaries have warned whole 
conferences of intelligent pastors to not preach 
premillennialism nor to allow it preached by 
others in their pulpits. This is Protestant pop¬ 
ery brought down to date. 

Let faithful ministers preach the Word of 
God so they can answer to Him, not to eccles¬ 
iastical bosses. But with a sad heart we desist. 


CHAPTER XVII 

THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST 
By Janies M. Campbell 

This is a small book - indeed it is small from 
every standpoint; and yet I hear that it came 
near being put in the Course of Study of the 
M. E. Church. The v/riter does not give us a 
single new thought; everything he says has 
been said by Eckman, Snowden, Case, Guff and 
others. A few points only require our attention. 

1. Apocalypticism. It is common with re¬ 
cent writers who -oppose the premillennial com¬ 
ing of our Lord to talk learnedly of what they 
are pleased to style ‘apocalypticism’. They treat 
it, however, as though it were apocrapha. Our 
attenion is mainly given to the postmillennial- 
ists. But we find quite a number who, like 
Mr. Campbell, take a position of the preterist 
type. He says, “The imagery in which it 
(our Lord’s return) is set forth in the New r 
Testament was borrowed from Jewish apoca¬ 
lyptic sources, from the later prophets, espe¬ 
cially from the book of Daniel, and is to be 
explained in harmony with the highly dramatic 
and symbolical character of these writings.” 
(p. 8). 

We have answered this so fully under Rail, 
Snowden and Case that no more need be said 
here. Please note our strictures on this point 
under writers named. 


363 


The Second Coming of Christ 

2. Aion and kosmos. Mr. Campbell speaks 
of “the difference in the meaning of these two 
words,” He says correctly that the aion is the 
“age” rather than “the world”; that it “means 
age and nothing but age”; while the latter (kes¬ 
mos) means the outward world in which we 
dwell, and nothing else; and yet they are both 
alike rendered 'world’.” (p 22). He is correct 
as concerning the aion; but he is hardly so 
exact, it seems to me, on the kosmos. This 
word sometimes has a good or allowable and 
unhurtful meaning. But yet again it signifies 
the ungodly atmosphere of worldliness. 

Thayer defines kosmos in its bad sense, “(6) 
The ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men 
alienated from God, and therefore hostile to 
the cause of Christ. (7) Wordly affairs, the 
aggregate of things earthly; the whole circle of 
earthly goods, endowments, riches, advantag¬ 
es, pleasures, etc., which, although hollow and 
frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God 
and are obstacles to the cause of Christ”. 

When the 'end of the world’ is spoken of 
aion is the Bible word, and it always means 
the completion of the age. It does not in any 
sense indicate the blotting out of this mundane 
kosmos I believe is never used in connection 
with the “end of the world”, nevertheless its 

ending is assured by Paul when he says “the 
fashion of this world (kosmos) passeth away.” 


3C4 Fostmillennialism and The Higher Critics 

(1 Cor. 7:31). The kcsmos means the spirit 
of evil, the worldly atmosphere that blights and 
destroys spiritual character. It is this evil at¬ 
mosphere or spirit of antagonism to God, that 
shall pass away, for which we give thanks. 

3. Two Age-endings foretold. Many are 
in confusion in their effort to expound Matthew 
24, because cf their failure to observe the fact 
that there are two age-endings in this chapter— 
the Jewish and the Christian age are both to 
end, although the line of distinction is not clear¬ 
ly drawn in the passage. The disciples asked 
the Master, “When shall these things be, and 
what is the sign of thy coming and of the con¬ 
summation of the age?” Here are in fact 
three questions, rather than one. (a) “When 
shall these things be? ” - the destruction of the 
temple when not one stone shall be left upon 
another, and the overthrow of the city, (b) 
“What shall be the sign of thy coming? ” and 
(c) “of the consummation of the age?” The 
Master answered the three questions as one. 
The two ages have their endings, and each goes 
out in fearful catastrophe. The Jewish age end¬ 
ed in war and pestilence; and, under the ham¬ 
merings of Roman hordes, Jerusalem and the 
temple were utterly smashed. Thus ended an 
age; and the first question was answered, and 
with it the second question was partly answer¬ 
ed; for the Jewish age terminated in the over- 


The Second Coming of Christ 


365 


throw and utter destruction of the Jewish na¬ 
tional life. 

But the third question can only have its com¬ 
plete answer in the reply to the second; “What 
shall be the sign of thy coming ? ” This in¬ 
volves the ending of a second age, namely, the 
Christian, and this will involve a second des¬ 
truction of Jerusalem. (Zech. 13:8,9; 14:1-5) 

On another page we give a brief analysis of 
Zechariah the fourteenth, in which we show 
clearly that this second destruction of Jerusalem 
and all its attendant scenes, including thd per¬ 
sonal return of our Lord Jesus, n yet awaits ful¬ 
fillment; and that all signs point’ to its'early 
accomplishment. r 'Matthew 24, 1 ther^f orb, finds 
perfect fulfill’merit • only lrtgthV eliding bf two 
ages, in t\vii desfructions ; qf*in 
the‘ one' glpribus, future, visible ’appearing in 

^ kingly &pl£rl£lbf 'atid majesty BenCbf 

sniQ-no zAr.sqz sH JfedqrriiO ol atobiina ns • 


man 

yjoli 


^ . ; 


iO g Ii 1 Y) 


or!' 


j 4 fC'UO.d t 

J - /*• JesuS;. comes to earth twice. * These -comings 
r are both in the flesh ; first,' as- a babe-barn, and 
pre^r^d in.poyerty; second, as-a man arrayed Jn 
i- splendor, even as a greag king, Both comings 
-. are:-visible ..He was seen, on .His first vi^tdo 
5 -eartl] and, will be se.en .on His second., T Jhis 
.iSrproven by His own testimony,, wher),. He. says, 

h m co w0^ 

f clpyds of.jhp^ven 0k pp.v;er.an : d: great glory, 

230) -s \ i♦ i. •*i r.. ,.' 


366 PostmiHenni&iism and The Higher Critics 

Jerusalem will be overthrown at His second 
coming, even as it was destroyed after His res¬ 
urrection by the overthrow of the Jews at His 
first coming. 

4. A preterist doctrine. Mr. Campbell, like 
Goff and certain other writers, tells us that 
Jesus has already come. Goff,whom we have 
fully answered, thinks our Lord’s return occur¬ 
red about A.D.70 or 71, at which time Jerusa¬ 
lem was destroyed (by Roman armies. Mr. 
Campbell, however, places the second coming 
at Pentecost or sometimes at the destruction 
of Jerusalem. His fourth chapter bears the 
heading, “With what event did the second com¬ 
ing of Christ synchronize?” His answer is, 
“with the end of the age”, by which he means 
the end of the Jewish dispensation. 

1 quote from “The Return of The Redeemer” 
by George P. Eckman, words in which he gives 
an antidote to Campbell. He speaks of some 
who say, “Though the coming of the Holy 
Spirit cannot be actually identified as the per¬ 
sonal coming of Christ, yet the Promised return 
of our Lord did occur in connection with 
it.” In defense of this theory it is said 
that after Pentecost our Lord’s disciples’ 
came to experience a consiousncss of his 
presence which they never afterward alto¬ 
gether lost.’ This is true, but in spite of it the 
apostles still kept preaching and writing about 
bis return in fh* future. If the second advent 


367 


The Second Coming of Christ 

of Christ was contemporaneous with the de¬ 
scent of the Holy Spirit, the apostles did not 
know it, for they continued to look for his re¬ 
turn, as we shall see when we come to examine 
their writings. Moreover, to say that, while 
Christ’s return is not just the same as the de¬ 
scent of the Holy Spirit, it yet accompanied it 
and occurred in connection with it, is only to 
darken counsel with words-” (p. 45). 

On another page Eckman says, “On the 
Damascus road Paul is arrested by the voice 
of the Lord and the unbearable splendor of the 
eternal glory. That was a coming of the Lord. 
That kind of miraculous advent of Christ to the 
souls of men is startling society every day. The 
main proof of the divine source of our religion 
is that our Lord is publicly coming to such vast 
numbers of redeemed spirits. Yet no careful 
student of the Bible will say that these sublime 
triumphs of grace fulfill our Lord’s promise of 
his return to judge the world. No more would 
it be adequate to say, as some have dared to 
do, that at death we have the final coming of 
Christ. Such an assertion empties at one stroke 
nearly every prediction Christ made about his 
coming again of any definitive meaning.” (p. 
47). Then he adds, “without question Paul 
looked for a distinctly personal return of the 
Redeemer.” (p. 26 ). But Campbell says: it was 
both spiritual and “epochal-” “As a spiritual 
event, it was not verifiable by the senses; as an 


368 P&stmillsmiiaiism and The Higher Critics 

epochal event it was like the gradual emer¬ 
gence of the sun from a cloud-bank by which 
its presence had been temporarily eclipsed. 
Yet it had its focal point, and that point was 
Pentecost. I am sure we are abundantly 
justified in saying that Christ came 
at Pentecost, inasmuch as his coming was then 
outwardly expressed and confirmed.” (p 25). 

His sixth chapter heading is,“ For what ends 
did he come?” He then quotes Paul (2 Thess. 

1 :7,8) where the Lord is said to be “revealed 
in flaming fire”, and adds, “His judgments were 
to culminate in a great event which is spoken 
of as ‘that great and terrible day of the Lord! 
In Christ’s day (I suppose he means here v/hen 
Jesus was yet on earth and before His cruci¬ 
fixion P.) that judgment is within a life-time 
or generation; in the epistles ‘it is at hand’ in 
the Apocalypse ‘it is to come’; or rather, it is 
‘about to come’—the storm-cloud being repre¬ 
sented as rolling up, and about to break in a 
deluge of doom. Its breaking is a matter of his¬ 
tory.” (p. 27). “Another and greater judgment 
is to take place at the end of the Christian age.” 
(p. 28). “To this wider vision of Christ’s 
work of judgment, the thought of the early 
Christians naturally turned, as the judgment 
connected with his second coming receded into 
the past”, (p. 29). 

Commenting on Hebrews 9:2 8, he says 
this is “the only instance in the New Testament 


369 


The Second Coming of Christ 

in which the return of Christ is spoken of as 
a second coming,” and further on adds, “At 
his second coming he was no longer the world's 
sin-bearer”, (pp 30-31). 

Let us notice some of these points briefly. 

(1) If the Master came at Pentecost, it is 
strange that no notice was taken of the event. 
There is no reference whatever in the New Tes¬ 
tament to the coming of ‘the Son of man' as 
an event of record. Only the outpouring of the 
Spirit is recorded. 

(2) This whole proposition of Mr. C's is 
based on the presence of the Deity of our Lord 
as Christ; in which sense He would not have 
to come again, having never been absent. His 
own word is “Lo, I am with you always”. But 
as Jesus, the Son of man, He is absent and is 
not to return until “the times of the restitu¬ 
tion of all things.” (Acts 3:20,21). 

(3) If He came at Pentecost, and that was His 
revelation “in flaming fire, taking vengeance 
on them that know not God, and that obey not 
the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ,” it seems 
like a very strange proceeding, for it was then 
that the gospel dispensation opened, and the 
word of salvation began to be preached to the 
peoples of the earth. But Mr. Campbell would 
have us believe that the gospel dispensation was 
then closed, for he represents Jesus as coming 
then to take judgment on those who had re¬ 
jected the gospel. Thus Campbell would close 


370 Poshnillenmalisni and The Higher Critics 

the gospel dispensation at the very time when, 
according to the scriptures, it was beginning. 

(4) If that was the judgment attending the 
second coming, how much greater an event 
may we expect in a future judgment, which 
Campbell himself concedes? (p 28 ) If the 
second coming occurred at Pentecost,and there 
remains a future judgment to be attended by a 
revelation of our Lord, then of necessity this 
future event must be a third coming, not the 
second. 

(5) But the Acts, which tells us of the ascen¬ 
sion, and promises the return of “this same 
Jesus” (1:9-11), was not written till long after 
Pentecost; nor, indeed, were any of the books 
of the New Testament. None of them were 
written before 25 years or more had passed, 
subsequent to Pentecost. T his is true of the 
Gospels as well as the Epistles. Many of these 
books contain prophecies of our Lord’s return, 
and all reference to it treats it as a future event, 
whereas, if Campbell is right, it was a histori¬ 
cal, rather than a prophetic coming at the 
time the books of the New Testament v/ere 
written. 

But what does all this matter with such a 
writer as Campbell? He scraps all these man¬ 
ifest facts and tells us in apparent seriousness 

that the second coming and its accompanying 
judgment “is a matter of history”. 


371 


The Second Coming of Christ 

(6) If Jesus came the second time at Pente¬ 
cost, what was meant by His statement to John 
long after that period, “Behold I come quick¬ 
ly.”? And what was John’s understanding of 
it, when he replied, “Even so, come, Lord 
Jesus.”? 

We might say much more about this, but 
for the fact that our reply to Goff leaves no 
ground for the dogma of preterism to rest upon. 

(7) To show that we have not exaggerated 
C’s position we quote once again, “That judg¬ 
ment begun at the second advent is yet going 
on”, (p 40). To get the full significance of 
these words, observe one verse of Matthew 
wherein (25:31) he records the Master as 
saying, “When the Son of man shall come in 
his glory, and all the holy angels with him, 
then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; 
and before him shall be gathered all nations, 
and he shall separate them one from another, 
as a shepherd divideth his sheep from, the 
goats”. We remember how those of the one 
class pass up into glory, while those of the 
other are swept down into hell. 

These things do not occur, as we show 
elsewhere, till the judgment of the great white 
throne at the close of the millennium, which is 
the judgment of the living nations. If Mr. 
Campbell is right, Jesus came at Pentecost and 
all His holy angels with Him, bound and incar¬ 
cerated Satan, raised the holy martyrs and be- 


372 Posimillennialism and The Higher Critics 

gan His glorious reign on earth. Where is the 
proof that any of these things happened? What 
proof have v/e that Jesus came at Pentecost? 
Who saw the throng of holy angels that were 
to come with Him? Where was His throne 
erected? Who saw this throne? Is there any 
such record in sacred or profane history? Where 
were the nations gathered for judgment? When 
and how were they separated? How is it that 
the earth is now so thoroughly inhabited if the 
wicked were driven into hell and the righteous 
taken away into glory at Pentecost? If not, 
such affirmation is the quintessence of non¬ 
sphere. The fact is, this world will not end, 
but will be “doing business at the same old 
stand”, a million years from now. The word 
red at Pentecost, how is it that the world has 
been so corrupt, so exceedingly wicked, adown 
the intervening ages? Whence have come 
all our wars, all the burning of martyrs, all 
the crimes of individual and national charac¬ 
ter? The reign of Christ on earth, that should 
have begun at Pentecost, if the teachings of 
Mr. Campbell be true, has certainly accomplish¬ 
ed but little for a sin-blighted and a sin-pursed 
world. I for one should have rjlttlp respect ,f r or 
the reign of Christ, if ; The results ; pf .the. ,dai;k 


beUijs^ipp s-aqcount lor the,dark ,ages. ^ith : , their 
villainies an& i crim'es* 1 wit la Their ’lawlessness; 


373 


The Second Coming of Christ 

ith their oppression of the poor and their de¬ 
struction of the innocent; with their blood and 
butchery, if the kingdom of Christ was estab¬ 
lished upon the earth so long ago? To this 
very day, we have a world filled with wicked¬ 
ness, with anarchy and injustice, false re¬ 
ligions and corrupt superstitions, a world that 
is crazy for boodle, and baptized with blood. 

And now this preacher, this D. D., supposed 
to ibe an expounder of the Word, a lover of 
God’s truth, asks me to shut my eyes to the 
weary centuries of sin and out-breaking law¬ 
lessness, stop my ears to the weird wailings of 
human sadness, and the plaintive pleadings of 
broken hearts, and try to make myself believe 
that Jesus, in kingly majesty and ineffable 
glory, has been seated on the throne of world 
power and conducting the best kingdom of 
which He was capable for all these weary and 
blighted centuries. I would not stultify my in¬ 
telligence by professing any such creed, or in¬ 
sult the intelligence of others by trying to make 
them believe such manifest falsehoods. 

I cannot shut my eyes and blind my mind to 
the facts of history in order to accept an un¬ 
reasonable and unscriptural dogma at the dic¬ 
tate of popery or the maudlin contentions of 
superficial dogmatists. Our Lord’s first coming, 
though in lowliness and poverty, has a place 
and a date in human reckoning. He has laid 
hold upon the wheels of time, changed the 


374 Pestmillennaism and The Higher Critics 

current of history and set the calendar of the 
earth by the chronometer of the skies, until 
we date our letters and our deeds in the period 
A. D. But the world is yet in rebellion. It 
sins against God with a high hand. The Mas¬ 
ter preaches and pleads, He sends forth His 
ministers, and pours out His message, but the 
bulk of humanity is rejecting Him. In due 
time, He will change His methods. He will as¬ 
sume the kingly role, be seated upon the throne 
of Divine Sovereignty, wield the scepter of uni¬ 
versal authority, shake the world, break up the 
dominion of His foes, and with the power of 
the King of all kings, He will establish a rule 
upon earth of righteousness, before which shall 
fly the hordes of iniquity, while nations shall fall 
at His feet, and crown Him universal King. 

A Neglected Distinction. 

"It is a pathetic thing when the fact of 
Christ’s coming is practically denied and the 
lament is heard: 

He, whom 1 fix my hopes upon,” 

Jesus, my all, to heaven is gone, 

as if he were there and not here, and all that 
is to be done is to wait patiently for his re¬ 
turn”. (P 80). Mr. Campbell [makes the 
same mistake here that appears in all the an- 
timillennial writers; that of not recognizing 
the Lord’s two-fold nature and service. Please 
observe:- 


373 


The Second Coming of Christ 

(1) “Jesus” is the human name of our Lord. 
It was His name as a baby, a boy, a carpenter, 
a man on trial and on the cross. 

(2) “Christ” is His Messianic name. The ques¬ 
tion was debated by those of His time, “Is He 
the Christ?” Believers said “Yes”; unbelievers 
rejecting His claims, replied “No”. In His 
divine character, as the Christ, He is most cer¬ 
tainly with His people, dwelling in their hearts, 
guiding their faltering steps, and blessing their 
labors. (Eph. 3:17; Matt. 28:20). But in His 
human form, as a man, as one born of the 
Virgin, as the One who was nailed to the cross, 
who died, who was buried in Joseph’s tomb, 
who arose, and who ascended on high, and was 
called This same Jesus’; He is not now with us, 
nor will He be until the times of the restoration 
of all things. (Acts 3: 19-21). 

The poet is right. Jesus, my all, to Heaven 
has gone; nor has He returned, these dogmatic 
writers to the contrary notwithstanding. The 
Master told us of those who would be looking 
for Him in the desert, and in the secrei places, 
but notifies us that their search is vain, that 
His coming is like the flash of lightning, that 
may be seen from the east to the west. 

(9) Mr. Campbell says that having returned, 
Christ is now here in all the fullness of His 
redeeming power (p 79) and adds, “The main 
objection to the idea of a corporeal coming of 
Christ is, that it overlooks the doctrine of His 


376 Postmillennialism and The Higher Critics 

proper divinity”, (p 81) I insist that Mr. 
Campbell’s putting of this whole case is faulty; 
that he overlooks our Lord’s humanity, and the 
plain declarations of Himself and His disciples 
that He will return as a man, even as “the Son 
of man”. 

C. has declared over and over again that 
Christ came at Pentecost. The fact is, Christ 
our Lord in His proper deity, as God, has not 
left the earth. In giving the great commis- 
tion, He said, “Lo, I am with you all the days”. 
So in His deity He was with His disciples before 
Pentecost, at Pentecost, and is with all 
who love Him today. His Godhead fills 
immensity; as the Infinite One, He permeates 
the Universe and dwells in the lowly heart. (Isa. 
57:15). But His humanity is seated at the 
right hand of God in heaven. (Acts 7:55). 
“Whence (as says the creed) He will come 
at the end of the age to judge the quick and the 
dead.” Now, after all that our friend has said 
concerning the return of Jesus at the Pente¬ 
cost, he proceeds to speak of the “signs of 
the progressive coming of Christ”, (p 96). 
So, according to Campbell, He came, and is 
coming. He is here, and yet He is constant¬ 
ly on the way!! Such is the teaching of this 
man who would revolutionize the world’s view 
of our Lord’s soon coming. And C. tries to 
find support for all this hotchpotch of teach¬ 
ing from the Greek text. Note the following: 


377 


The Second Coming of Christ 

'‘The picture of the second advent is that of 
the approach of one, who is at a distance. He 
draws near, and still nearer; at length he arrives 
and is permanently present.” (p. 82). 

Well, at this rate, the Lord either started a 
long time before Pentecost and arrived then, 
else He simply began moving this way at Pente¬ 
cost, and has never yet arrived. Thus Mr. Camp¬ 
bell contradicts all he has been telling us. Isn’t 
this brilliant! Wonder if the Methodist author¬ 
ities hadn’t ibest yet put this wonderful book in 
their course of study!! 

But let us see his use of the Greek, “In the 
first stage of the Divine approach the word 
used is erchomai, as in the text ‘My Lord delay- 
eth His coming.” (Luke 12:45). In the final 
stage the word used is parousia, which al¬ 
ways means ‘presence’, or being ‘alongside’. 
He then gives as sample uses of parousia Matt 
24:3; James 5:7; 2 Peter 1:16; 3:4. (p 82). 
Very well; parousia means ‘presence’, and we 
have shown in reply to Goff on Matt. 16:28, 
and its connection with 2 Peter 1:16, that the 
“presence” referred to was that of Jesus, in 
His own proper person. This parousia or pres¬ 
ence of our Lord was plainly revealed on 
the Mount of transfiguration, while He was 
yet “tabernacling” in the flesh. It was this 
parousia of which Peter said that he was an 
eye-witness. And in Revelation (1:7) we read 
“Behold He cometh with clouds.” This is one 


378 Foetmillennialism arjd The Higher Critics 

of the passages quoted by Mr. Campbell, and 
is surely the final stage of His coming; and yet 
the word here used for “oometh” is erchomai; 
which, C. says, is used for “the first stage of 
Jesus’ coming”; likewise in Jesus’ own saying, 
“They shall see the Son of man coming”, the 
word is erchomia. If this is not a description of 
what Mr. Campbelll calls 'the final stage’, then 
what is it? 

As to our Lord’s glorious Divine presence,His 
presence in Godhead, it is true that Christ dwells 
within the trusting heart. But we can see some¬ 
what of the fallacies C. is seeking to ‘palm 
off’ on the world, when we observe that the 
very word he assigns to the first stage of our 
Lord’s return, erchomia, is the word Jesus Him¬ 
self used concerning the final stage of His com¬ 
ing in matchless glory, and not merely a word 
to indicate a beginning of a centuries long, pro¬ 
gressive coming. “Be ye ready * * * in such 
an hour as ye think not (the final crisis) your 
Lord comes” - erchomai. This word is used 
also of the thief, who “comes” unexpectedly 
and breaks up the house. What harm can a 
thief do the house at the first stage of his move¬ 
ments toward it, before arriving? His pres¬ 
ence is essential, if he would secure things of 
value, and “break up” the house. 

But we need not be surprised at these blun¬ 
ders in Greek interpretation [by one whose 
whole preterist scheme, like that of the post- 


379 


The Second Coming of Christ 

millennialists, is a far-fetched method of in¬ 
terpretation, as unfounded as the “baseless 
fabric of a dream”. 

(10) Like others who array themselves a- 
gainst the premillennial coming of Jesus, our 
brother sets himself the task of getting rid 
of some very plain declarations of the Word, 
especially of John’s announcement of our 
Lord’s return in visible glory (Rev. 1:7) when 
“every eye shall see Him”. Mr. Campbell says 
that the Patinos Seer “must have been speaking 
of his outward physical manifestation in the hy¬ 
perbole of the Oriental,” and goes on to add,” 
the universal visualizing of himself upon the 
physical plane would be an impossibility.” 
(pp 98-9). Did you note what that preacher 
said? He actually declares that it would be “im¬ 
possible” for Jesus to show Himself physi¬ 
cally, as He has here promised. But my Bible 
says, “There is nothing impossible with God”. 
(Jer. 32: 17, 26, and I believe it. What say 
you, reader? 

Jesus denounced in strong terms those who 
teach that at His return, He will be sought 
for in secret places and in deserts. Concern¬ 
ing such teaching He said, “Believe it not”. 
He adds, “Then shall all the tribes of the earth 
see the Son of man.” (Matt. 24:30). If this 
is impossible, and they shall not see Him, we 
have here from the very lips of Jesus, a false¬ 
hood. Perish such folly. And may God sweep 


3S0 Postmilkanlaiism and The Higher Critic* 

from the earth such infidelity as would make 
even Jesus a falsifier. But our friend Camp¬ 
bell thinks this is ‘Oriental hyperbole’. 

1 have no personal acquaintance with this 
gentleman. 1 want to believe him, a good 
man; but his juggling with the Word of God is 
offensive to my conscience. I really wonder 
what will become of the peoples’ faith in the 
Bible if such teaching is allowed to go unre¬ 
buked. (11) I can quite easily agree with Mr. 
Campbell when he says, “A religion of forms is 
at a discount” (p 106 ). It certainly is at a dis¬ 
count in heaven and on earth wherever spiri¬ 
tual values are predominant. And yet in our 
own beloved (Methodism, the postmijlenni^l 
leaders have put over on us an “Order of Wor¬ 
ship”, containing fourteen items on which 
those who follow it spend about forty minutes. 
Then a twenty minute sermonette completes 
the “performance” and the spiritually-dwarfed 
victims, who have received these stones, in¬ 
stead of bread, hurry home to dinner and the 
daily paper, or an automobile ‘spin’ through 
the country. Thank God premillennialists are 
not responsible for this supplanting of vital 

religion in a church that was raised up of God 
“to spread scriptural holiness over these 
lands”, by a system of dry-as-dust forms. Try 
to imagine Peter observing a Methodist “Or¬ 
der of Worship” at Pentecost. 


The Second Coming of Christ 381 

The way Mr. Campbell clashes with his own 
sense. If Jesus came and the judgment occur- 
written and fulfilled at or before the destruc¬ 
tion of Jerusalem by the Roman armies. He 
places the second coming of Jesus at about 
A. D. 70, and thus by one fell blow sweeps the 
teaching and contradicts himself, were it not 
tragic, as a sad perversion of God’s Word, 
would be amusing. He writes thus: “The sec¬ 
ond coming of Christ has given a new meaning 
and value to the Lord’s Supper. When Paul 
said “As oft as ye eat this bread and drink 
this cup, ye proclaim the LC'd’s death till 
come; he was thinking of Christ’s immediate 
coming, and not of his coming at the end of 
the world.” (p 106). But you told us, Sir, 
that Christ came at Pentecost. Now you have 
Paul, who was converted quite awhile after 
Pentecost, and who wrote this epistle some 
twenty-six years after that event, writing ,about 
the return of our Lord as a future expectation, 
but one that you say was near, and not at the 
end of the world. How could Paul in his writings 
be pointing forward to an event that lay more 
than a quarter of a century behind him, having 
occurred, as you tell us, before Paul’s conver¬ 
sion? Truly the legs of the lame are not e- 
qual,” but great ecclesiastics will persist in writ¬ 
ing these absurd contradictions. If C’s pos¬ 
ition is correct, and Paul spoke of a very near 
coming then the Lord’s Supper must have 


382 Postmilleimialism and The Higher Critics 

shortly thereafter ceased, for it was to show 
the Lord’s death “till he come”, after which it 
would cease to function. So C. would now 
bring an end to this sacrament 
( 12 ) 

ABOUT CHRISTIAN SERVICE. 

Like other opponents of premillennial teach¬ 
ing, Mr. Campbell charges it with deadening 
Christian activities along social and reform 
lines. They think we are too much disposed 
to neglect present service to humanity, and 
needed active opposition to Satan’s dominance 
in the earth. They seem to think that preinil- 
lennialists are obsessed with an antinomian 
opposition to social service. Of course people 
of Calvanistic and antinomian proclivities may 
accept premillennialism, and this glorious truth 
may not correct all their doctrinal notions. 

I am far from anything of a Calvanistic tenden¬ 
cy; am a thorough Arminian, and have spent 
a very active life in prohibition and other re¬ 
form work. I do not hold myself responsible 
in any sense for all the notions that may be 
entertained by some premillennialists; but 1 do 
insist that premillennialism, as a system of 
teaching, is in nowise responsible for anything 
of an antiomian character. Many of the great¬ 
est philanthropists of history were devout and 
earnest believers in the near coming of our 
Lord. I need but refer to such names as A. C. 
Dixon, L. YV. Mundall, J. Frank Norris, A. J. 


383 


The Second Coming of Christ 

Gordon, Evangelist Stough, Billy Sunday, H. 
C. Morrison and others, on earth and in heaven, 
who have fought every evil and have devout¬ 
ly stood for everything uplifting and noble a- 
mong men. And yet they have held with te¬ 
nacity to that which our beloved brother, Paul, 
called “the blessed hope of His glorious appear¬ 
ing.” 

Mr. Campbell quotes from one man who con¬ 
fesses that he has abandoned all efforts to re¬ 
form the world, because he feels that the only 
hope in this unequal conflict is in the return 
of our Lord. Of course some men may feel 
thus; but I, for one, should like to be found 
faithful and in the heat of the conflict when 
the Captain of our salvation appears upon the 
scene. Speaking personally, I have been a 
voting prohibitionist all my life, and while many 
have been far more effective no man has ren¬ 
dered a more faithful service to the cause than 
the writer of these lines, he feels safe in saying. 
Our religion is a religion of service to God and 
man and he who would wear the crown must 
bear the cross. Our Lord insists that we be 
found faithful, that we “occupy” till His re¬ 
turn. Let us not disappoint Him. 

But there is another feature that Mr. Camp¬ 
bell seems to have overlooked, viz., that all 
premillennialists believe in an aggressive gos¬ 
pel. Whether or not they take part in reform 
activities, they do believe in faithfully present- 


384 Postmillennialhm and The Higher Critics 

ing Christ, as the world’s only hope. And of 
course when a man is thoroughly saved, he is 
already entirely reformed. His reformation 
without salvation would in the end be unavail¬ 
ing; but reformation through salvation is God¬ 
honoring. 

(13) 

Notes on the Catechism 

Mr. Campbell reaches his climax in a cate¬ 
chism on the second coming. I shall briefly 
notice a few items in this department of his 
book. 

He says that the disciples never saw Jesus 
again, after his ascension, save with the eyes of 
their spirits.” (p 120). The Bible informs 
us that Stephen when undergoing martyrdom 
saw Him. (Acts 7: 55, 56), and two human 
titles, “Jesus” and “Son of man” are used in 
describing the vision. On the same page, C. 
declares that there is “no ground whatever” for 
the idea that “the coming of Christ is to tv 
outward and physical”. Strange assertion, in 
the light of many Bible declarations, such as, 
“Then shall they see the Son of man coming 
in the clouds.” If the Son of man is not visible, 
then no other “son of man” is visible. And if 
He is not visible, then the clouds are not visible. 
And if the clouds and the Son of man are not 
visible, then the word of Jesus spoken in all 
the solemnity of His trial before the High 
Priest is not true. 


385 


The Second Corning of Christ 

But it does not seem to hurt these preterist 
and postmillennial writers to dispute the word 
of Jesus, when He clashes with their theory. 
Sad! 

‘Tor the idea of a fleshly reincarnation, there 
is not a single shred in holy writ.” (p 12 1). 
What does he mean .by this? “Reincarnation” 
is a word that belongs chiefly to the Vedic 
(pagan) religions-—those that teach the trans¬ 
migration of souls. This certainly cannot be 
Mr. Campbell’s thought. If not, then he sim¬ 
ply flatly denies the resurrection of the body. 
If there is no resurrection of the body, the 
whole account of the rising of our Lord from the 
tomb is an Oriental fable. The New Testament 
record informs us that the crucified body of 
Jesus was taken from the cross, properly en- 
swathed in linen and laid in Joseph’s new rock- 
hewn sepulchre, whence He arose, leaving an 
empty tomb. Even the linen clothes and head¬ 
dress are mentioned as being left where He had 
lain in the tomb. But it is specifically declar¬ 
ed that certain disciples visited the sepulchre 
and they entered in and “found not the body of 
the Lord Jesus.” (Luke 24: 1-3). 

But these enemies of premillennialism are 
even denying the bodily resurrection of both 
our Lord and His people. The word for* resur¬ 
rection is anastasis, and is generally, if not al¬ 
ways, used only of the body, which dies and a- 
waits a resurrection. I know that Paul, refer- 



3SG Postmillennialism and lhe Higher Critics 

ring* to regeneration says, “If ye be risen with 
Christ, seek the things which are above.” But 
he does not here use the word for resurrection 
(anastasis), but a different word. The body 
dies and is resurrected, literally “stands up a- 
gain”. It is the rankest of heresy to deny the 
resurrection of the body. 

Concerning the time of our Lord’s return, 
Mr. Campbell says, “Madness lies in the way 
of date-fixing.” (p 123). Then Mr. C. has 
gone mad, for he sets the date, placing it more 
than eighteen centuries in our rear, and declares 
“those who are -still looking for Christ to 
come, are nineteen hundred years too late.” 
(p 12 1). It really seems from the known 
facts in the case that our friend is “a bit pre¬ 
vious”. 

Listen to this: “The destruction of Jeru¬ 
salem was the sign that the Jewish age had 
ended, and that Christ had come to be for¬ 
ever present.” (p 126). So our Lord’s “pres¬ 
ence” had so little weight or significance that 
it could only be known by the awful scourge 
of Rome’s pagan and brutal armies. Since 
Jesus could not be seen, a sign had to be given 
in the presence of a murderous and desolating 
Roman army!! 

Then what did the Lord mean when He 
branded as liars, not to be believed, those who 
say He is in the desert or secret chambers? 


387 


T he Second Coming of Christ 

(Matt 24: 27, 28). “Believe them not”, said 
Jesus, and I, for one, do not believe Campbell, 
or any of the rest of them, when they attempt 
to make me stultify my intelligence by conced¬ 
ing that the Son of man has returned, and is in 
the desert or secret chambers. The flash of 
lightning blazes its way athwart the open heav¬ 
ens, and thus shall be the coming of our Lord. 
This will need no clash of armies, no desolating 
scourge of invading hordes, to proclaim it. 
“Every eye shall see Him.” 

But why waste printer’s ink or longer test the 
reader’s patience with the vagaries and unscript- 
ural theories of those who reject the Word of 
God for their own human opinions? 


L. L. P. 


CHAPTER XVIII 

HE CAME AGAIN : Notes cn Goff 

The opponents of pre-millennialism are now 
divided into three companies. They are the 
preterists, who teach that the second coming 
is in the past. Next,, the post-millennialists, 
who believe that our Lord will not return until 
the church, with the spiritual forces now at 
work, shall have subdued the world, and 
brought it into harmony with God. To them, the 
millennium is simply a spiritual reign, under 
gospel influences, whereby the earth is to be 
brought to know God. After this, the return 
of the Lord shall be to the judgment of all men, 
and the winding up of earth’s affairs. They call 
this “the general judgment”, and believe that 
good and bad alike, ,with the living and the 
dead shall receive their judgment in a day. Then 
there is another class, whom we might call non- 
millennialists. They teach that there has been 
and will be no millennium. We do not care to 
dwell upon the teachings of the latter class. 
If there be no millennium there will be no judg¬ 
ment of the living nations for these are one and 
the same. 

For the present, let us give attention to the 
preterists. Among these, I might name H. W. 
Warren, in his book, “The Parousia”; James 
M. Campbell, in, “The Second Coming of 
Christ”; Urmy in “He Came Again”. Mr. 
Campbell’s book has attention in other pages. 


389 


He Cams Again 

For the present, we v/ill pay our respects 
to Rev. W. Roy Goff. In his book, “Jesus 
On His Second Coming,” this author contends 
earnestly for preterism. Mr. Goff read me 
considerable portions of this book in the man¬ 
uscript. I begged that he should not publish it, 
since I felt that it was so absolutely false that 
its circulation could do only harm. I see that 
he has received many flattering commenda¬ 
tions. Among those who endorse his book are 
some men of rank in the religious world. Some 
of them are teachers with scholastic titles, 
preachers of reputation, and among them, at 
least one bishop. His whole line of argu¬ 
ment is based on four scriptures. Matthew 10; 
23; 16:28; 24:34, and Luke 17:20. 

Mr. Goff’s argument, based on these four 
passages, is intended to prove that Jesus return¬ 
ed about the year A. D. 70, scarcely forty years 
after His ascension. He thinks that the whole 
bock of Revelation had its fulfillment at that 
date. He says, “As there is nothing to prove 
that the Book of Revelation and John’s Gospel 
and Epistles were written after A. D. 70, we 
believe, of course, that they were written prior 
to that date, as the time of the Coming or Rev¬ 
elation of Jesus mentioned therein should a- 
gree with the teachings of other New Testa¬ 
ment writers, who place that Coming at the 
end of the age, A. D. 70. And if the Book of 
Revelation is prophetic, in the sense of fore- 


390 Postmiilenmalism and The Higher Critics 

telling, it must necessarily have been written 
before that event—some authorities place the 
date as early as 54 A. D.” (17). * 

But our friend has the Book of Revelation 
Apocalypse from the field of present or future 
fulfillment. 

If Mr. Goff’s system of interpretation be 
true, all the marvelous visions given by the 

* We do not at all accept the idea that the 
Apocalypse was written so early. Iranaeous 
dates it at the close of Domitious reign. Jerome 
dates it at the close of the Domitian reign. Je¬ 
rome dates it in the fourteenth year of his 
reign; while Clemens places it after the tyrants’ 
death which occurred in A. D. 96, he having 
ascended the throne in A. D. 81. So the four¬ 
teenth year would place the Apocalypse at 
A. D. 95, whereas both Iranaeous and Clemens 
place it at 96 A. D. or later. That it could 
have been before A. D. 70 is absurd. 


Patmos Seer are now history. The beast, and 
the mother of harlots, have run their course 
and met their doom. The marriage of the 
Lamb is in the past; Jesus has ridden forth on 
His white horse, followed by the armies of 
heaven. The battle of Armageddon has been 
fought and passed into history. The beast and 
the false prophet have been already cast into 



391 


He Came Again 

the lake of fire, while the dragon has been in¬ 
carcerated in the pit. But if these things were 
fulfilled in the first century, it follows that the 
saints were raised at that time, that they reign¬ 
ed with Jesus for a thousand years, which would 
accordingly have terminated in the eleventh 
century following the return of our Lord; and 
so the entire twentieth of Revelation, includ¬ 
ing the raising of the saints and of “the rest 
of the dead”, together with the judgment of the 
great White Throne, and the renewal of the 
earth, was accomplished some nine hundred 
years ago. If his teaching be true, the book of 
Revelation might be folded up, and filed away 
in the achives of history. And-all this I say 
on the basis of Mr. Goff’s own book. 

Some may think I have exaggerated his 
teaching. If you think so, notice the follow¬ 
ing extract: “In the fulness of time, Christ came 
in His first advent; He preached, and instructed 
His disciples to preach, that His kingdom was 
near at hand. It was still being so preached 
when John’s Revelation was written, sometime 
between A. D. 54 and 70. He wrote of Jesus’ 
return and Revelation and the things that ‘must 
shortly come to pass’ (Rev.l:l) and “which 
shall (Greek, mello, is about to) be” (ver 19), 
for the time is at hand (ver. 3) ; He died and 
rose again to make its inauguration possible; 
He gave the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to be a 

guide and help to the disciples and believers 


392 Postmillenmalism and The Higher Critics 

to proclaim that same truth and ‘witness to all 
nations’ (Matt 24:14), which witnessing, hav¬ 
ing begun at Pentecost, continued thereafter 
until every nation and every creature had been 
reached, and that before A. D. 70, according 
to Paul (Cor 1:5, 6,23) while Jesus Himself 
during the same period, having ascended to the 
Father, ‘tarried, expecting until His foes’, that 
wicked generation, be put under his feet. But 
that ‘reign of God’ did not and could not come 
in its ‘fulness’ either to Gentiles (Romans 11: 
2 5), or to Jews (v. 12) until the whole visible 
fabric of Judaism, the Mosaic economy, was 
obliterated; and this happened only at the des¬ 
truction of the temple, which marked the end 
of the Levitical age”. (Jesus On His Second 
Coming p. 48). 

On another page this writer argues that the 
time of blindness upon Israel has long since 
past. At this point he says, “We believe the 
prophecy of Jesus and the apostles regarding 
the coming. Then Jesus has come and at his 
coming that blindness was to have been over¬ 
come.” (p 50). If so, then all Israel must 
be already saved, as foretold by the apostle. 
(Rom 1 1:25-27) Elsewhere, he tells us that 
the period known as “the times of the Gentiles” 
has already been fulfilled, that the ‘perilous 
times” foretold by Paul are in the past, and that 
tong since was fulfilled the word of the Master 
(in Matt. 24:14), “This gospel shall be preach- 


393 


He Came Again 

ed in all the world as a witness to all nations, 
and then shall the end (of the age) come” So 
“the end” is past! The last days are number¬ 
ed, Jesus has come; although the world has 
never seen nor heard of Him! So I evident¬ 
ly do not mistake Mr. Goff’s teaching. 

WHAT DOES MATTHEW 16:23 MEAN? 

This is one of the four texts on which Mr. 
Goff bases his theory. “There be some stand¬ 
ing here which shall not taste of death till they 
see the Son of man coming in his kingdom”. 
The very next word is a copulative conjunc¬ 
tion. “And after six days Jesus taketh with 
Him Peter, James, and John into a high moun¬ 
tain apart and was transfigured before them”. 
There follows the full account of the trans¬ 
figuration. Observe in this marvelous scene 
the following features: (1) our Lord’s face 
shone like the sun. (2) His raiment became 
white as the light. (3) There apeared unto 
them Moses and Elijah talking with Him. (4) 
A voice out of heaven proclaimed Jesus the 
only-begotten Son of God, and bade the hear¬ 
ers obey His voice. (5) Peter, James and John 
fell down like dead men at this vision of trans-. 
cendent glory. I aver that this is the promis¬ 
ed sight of the Son of man in His kingdom. 
An observant reader will notice the following 
facts: 

(a) There can be no kingdom without 
a king; but here we have the King of all 


3S4 Postmiilennialism and The Higher Critics 

kings, with radiant face and shining garments. 

(b) But a kingdom requires more than a king. 

He must have his cabinet. His cabinet mem- 

« 

bers must be selected judiciously, as they are 
his official family. But here we have Moses, 
from among the dead, and Elijah, to represent 
the living and translated saints. These are 
the king’s cabinet officials, (c) But a king and 
a cabinet do not alone constitute a kingdom. 
There must be subjects. And in this scene, 
we have Peter, James and John. They rep¬ 
resent humanity as subjects in the kingdom 
of Jesus. 

By the way, it will be observed that at 
least Peter and John were men of families. 
They had homes, wives and, most likely, child¬ 
ren. They represent the human family liv¬ 
ing on the earth under the beneficent reign of 
Jesus and His risen and translated saints. Thus 
we have the kingdom in its fulness—-the King, 
His cabinet officials, and the subjects of His 
reign. 

All these were visible—Jesus, Moses, Elijah 
and the three disciples, the whole kingdom 
in miniature. Not only was it visible, but 
voices were heard. The disciples saw Jesus, 
together with Moses and Elijah, and they saw 
each other; they saw the King and the king¬ 
dom. And this occurred within six days after 
the words of the text were spoken. The heav¬ 
ens opened and God the Father said, ‘This 


395 


He Caine Again 

is my beloved Son; hear ye Him”, thus pass¬ 
ing the authority of the kingdom over to the 
Son of man. But this was not the permanent 
establishment of the kingdom, it was only a 
display of the kingdom as it will be in the 
millennium. It was only put for the time on 
exhibition to chosen witnesses. They were 
allowed to see the Son of man in His kingdom.” 

Has anyone else given this passage the inter¬ 
pretation that 1 am giving it? Yes. Peter, 
himself, one of the participants, referring to 
this scene, said, “We have not followed cun¬ 
ningly devised fables, when we made known 
unto you the power and coming of our Lord 
Jesus Christ. But we were eye-witnesses of 
His majesty, when we were with Him in the 
holy mount, and heard the voice out of the 
excellent glory, This is my well-beloved Son, 
hear ye Him.” (2 Peter 1:16-18). Thus 
we have all the elements of the kingdom re¬ 
vealed, with the King at its head. And it 
occurred within a week of the time when Jesus 
spoke the words of the text. We would do no 
violence to the text, therefore, if we should 
paraphrase it thus: There be some standing 
here, namely, Peter, James and John, who shall 
before they die, even within six days of this 
time, behold Me in my glorious kingdom, as 
at the time of my second advent. 

Mr. Goff argues in one place that because 
the Master said some present should not taste 


3B3 Postmillsnmalism and The Higher Critics 

of death, ere they saw Him revealed in His 
kingdom, that, therefore, others present must 
die before this kingdom should be seen. This 
is very far-fetched; it does not at all follow. 
Many may have been present who did not die 
ere these days transpired. They did not, how¬ 
ever, witness the revelation of the kingdom. 

Bishop Merrill tried to find the fulfillment 
of this passage, “There (be some standing here”, 
etc., at the Pentecost. The fallacy in his in¬ 
terpretation is manifest. Please observe the 
following: (a) It was a kingdom, “the Son of 
man in his kingdom”, (b) This kingdom 
should be “seen”, (c) It was the kingdom of 
Jesus as a man. We do not need to repeat what 
we said as to the titles of Jesus. Both He and 
His kingdom are here said to be visible. No 
such visible kingdom, occurred at Pentecost; 
but it did, occur on the mount of transfigura¬ 
tion. 

God is a trinity. The first person, the Father, 
was revealed at Sinai, in the giving of the law. 
The second person in the Godhead, “the Son”, 
was revealed at Calvary, in the shedding of 
His blood for our redemption. The third per¬ 
son, the Holy Ghost, was revealed in flaming 
tongues at Pentecost. This three-fold revela¬ 
tion of the Godhead corresponds experimental¬ 
ly with our conviction, convertion and sancti¬ 
fication. Now who was to be seen by some of 
the disciples in the passage under considera- 


He Came Agaia 


337 


tion? Was it not the Son, in His personal 
glory, in His kingdom? But which person 
of the Godhead was manifested at the Pente¬ 
cost? Was it not the blessed Holy Spirit, our 
Comforter and Sanctifier? 

Mr. Goff was led into his blunder by the 
fallacies of the preterists. Here falls column 
one upon which he built the superstructure 
of his so-widely endorsed book. 

The second passage upon which he builds 
is Matthew 10:23. Jesus, sending forth His 
disciples, “As sheep in the midst of wolves,” 
bade them when persecuted in one city “flee 
into another”, and added, “Verily I say unto 
}ou, Ye shall not have gone over the cities 
of Israel till the Son of man be come”. What 
does this mean? Our preterist friends think 
it a conclusive argument that Jesus should come 
in kingly power and glory before these disci¬ 
ples had had sufficient time to evangelize Pal¬ 
estine. It may be that 1 do not know just 
what the Master meant by these words. But I 
do know that He did not mean to state that His 
glorious second coming would be accomplished 
in its fulness before the disciples could have 
preached throughout Judea. This could have 
been done even had He come, as taught by 
Mr. Goff, at the destruction of Jerusalem. They 
could have gone through the cities of a small 
province like Judea in the thirty-eight years 
that intervened, and indeed Mr. Goff himself 


398 ostmillennialism and The Higher Critics 

contends that the gospel was preached to all 
the world ere the destruction of Jerusalem, at 
which time he says Jesus came. Hence one of 
his positions nullifies the other. 

There are three things any one of which 
might give the meaning of this statement, with¬ 
out involving us in the absurdities of preter- 
ism. (1) He may have meant what He did in 
Matthew 16:28, which we have found to have 
been fulfilled in the transfiguration. Suppose 
Him to have said, “Before you shall have fin- 
ished your gospel work in Judea, “I will dis¬ 
play to the eyes of some of your brethren my 
kingly glory”. This would have been more 
reasonable than the teaching under review. 

(2) He may have meant to say, Your work 
will not have been completed throughout the 
world-wide ranks of scattered Israel until my 
glorious Second Coming. The ten lost tribes 
are scattered about the world, and no living 
man can know whether the gospel has yet been 
preached to all of them. Indeed, it is very 
doubtful if to this day all the cities of Israel 
(the ten lost tribes) have heard the gospel. 

(3) Or it may mean, and this I believe to 
be true, that our Master simply said, “With 
your best efforts you shall not have been able 
to fully evangelize, gospelize and save, even 
the cities of Israel, till I come again”. In the 
margin I find the words “end” or “finish” the 
cities of Israel. Thus our Master strikes down 


399 


He Came Again 

the entire superstructure of preterism and post- 
millennialism. It is as though He had said that, 
with their ibest endeavors, their mightiest efforts, 
the work would be so slow and tedious that 
even Israel’s cities (to say nothing of the rest 
of the world) could not be won, short of the 
day of His glorious advent. 

The next scripture on which our brother 
builds his preterist structure is Matthew 24 : 34 . 
“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall 
not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” 

Mr. Goff’s argument hinges on the word 
“generation.” He insists that it means, and 
can mean, but one thing, namely, that all the 
things foretold in this connection should be 
fulfilled within the lifetime of those then liv¬ 
ing. Wars and rumors of wars were to be. 
Famines, and scourges, and desolations were 
to come. The greatest tribulation that ever 
had been or ever should be on earth was to 
fall upon the people. Jesus was to come a- 
gain in power and glory, being seen jby every 
eye. He was to gather His elect from the four 
corners of the earth. And all of these things 
were to be accomplished before “this gener¬ 
ation” should pass. 

The one point concerning the greatest of 
earth’s tribulations is a complete refutation of 
all Mr. Goff or any other writer could say in 
an effort to prove that ail the things here 
named should come upon the people then liv- 


400 Postmillenrualism and The Higher Critics 

ing in Palestine. The mind of Jesus swept 
ail lands in all the centuries. He knew of the 
flood, of the wars of Ceasar, of Tamerlane, 
of Napoleon. He knew of all famines, pesti¬ 
lences, plagues, past, present, and future. He 
krfcew of the recent war, which with its atten- 
dant famines and plagues has undoubtedly cost 
the world more than forty million lives and the 
grim reaper is even now mowing down his 
thousands every day in Russia and elsewhere. 

Now with all these facts before His infinite 
wisdom who could believe that Jesus would 
have called the destruction of Jerusalem the 
greatest tribulation that ever was from the be¬ 
ginning of the world to this time, or ever should 
be? The greatest tribulation is necessarily 
world-wide and must come before the passing 
of that ‘‘generation”, namely, the Jews. 

Taking the word “generation” in its common 
meaning, namely, as “the body of people ex¬ 
isting at a given time”, Mr. Goff thinks the 
proof conclusive, that Jesus came again in¬ 
side of thirty, forty or fifty years from the 
date of the utterance of the text. 

As to the meaning of the word '‘generation”, 
or its greek root, genea. It ordinarily signi¬ 
fies the people living at a given date. But that 
it does not mean this only is evident. The 
Standard Dictionary, defining “generation”, us¬ 
es these words, “Race or family; stock or 
breed; kind; class”. Jesus after the flesh was a 


401 


He Came Again 

Jew. Looking around Him upon the Jewish 
race, what more natural than that, waving His 
hand about Him, He should say, “This race, or 
family of Israel; this stock or breed of people; 
though peeled and scattered, though driven 
and tossed throughout the earth, shall abide, 
shall not pass away or lose their racial identity, 
till all these things be fulfilled”? And this is 
true; it fits the facts. It is not true to fact to say 
that Jesus came again, visibly, and gathered 
together His elect, within the life-time of the 
disciples. 

Webster, also, in his Unabridged Dictionary, 
gives the words we have quoted from the 
Standard. Pickering’s Greek Lexicon defines 
this word genes, “Birth, generation, parent¬ 
age: stock, race:” and he quotes the Iliad thus, 
“Of this race and blood I boast to you that I 
am”. He adds, “lineage; family; descent; age; 
the age of man;” and then, using certain Greek 
expressions, he translates them thus: “of higher 
descent; to all ages; the female race.” 

From all these authorities we learn that 
“race, stock and breed” are a legitimate and 
correct translation of genes, and give the mean¬ 
ing of “generation”. Hence, there is no foun¬ 
dation whatever for the supposition that all the 
things in this prophecy had to have their ful¬ 
fillment in the life-time of persons who heard 
Jesus speak the words. 


402 Postmillennialism and The Higher Critics 

Thus falls the third prop from beneath the 
superstructure so laboriously erected by our 
friend. Jesus did not say, nor did He mean, 
that those living at the time of His life and min¬ 
istry should see the gospel preached to all na¬ 
tions, the greatest of earth’s tribulations, the 
elect gathered from the ends of the earth, and 
that they should see Him coming in the clouds 
with power and great glory. Such teaching 
is without foundation in Holy Writ. It is sub¬ 
versive of the truth. 

The fourth passage upon which he builds 
his theory is found in Luke (17:20,21). “Be¬ 
ing demanded of the Pharisees when the king¬ 
dom of God should come, he answered them 
and said, The kingdom of God cometh not 
with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo! 
here, or Lo, there! for, behold, the kingdom of 
God is within you”. (Margin, “among” or 
“in the midst” of you). Mr. Goff is so obsess¬ 
ed with his peculiar theory that he utterly 
misses the mark, even to the extent of thor¬ 
oughly misquoting this passage. He gives it 
thus: “When he was demanded of the Phari¬ 
sees when they would see the Son of man com¬ 
ing in his kingdom, he answered them and 
said, The coming of the Son of Man in his 
kingdom is not with ’observation”. 

And this was exactly what was not said, 
either by Jesus or by the Pharisees. They did 
not believe that the “Son of Man” would ever 


403 


He Came A.^ain 

“Come in His kingdom”; hence, they asked 
no such question. On the other hand, Jesus 
had said at sundry times that He would be 
“seen” coming in His kingdom; and He cer¬ 
tainly did not here contradict what He had 
positively affirmed elsewhere. 

They asked concerning the kingdom of God, 
not the kingdom of the Son of man. JesuS 
said God’s kingdom “cometh (a present tense 
verb) not with observation”. The simple 
meaning is, that the kingdom as then at work 
in the earth was not visible; it was, instead, the 
subjugation of human hearts to the inward 
rule of God. The time will come when the 
world itself will bend low at the feet of its 
Sovereign. He will rule the nations “with a 
rod of iron”. But that time is not yet; hence, 
Jesus used a present tense verb; thus inform¬ 
ing the Pharisees that the kingdom as then 
in the earth was invisible; as yet, “it cometh 
not with observation”. The kingdom of God, 
“righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy 
Ghost” is invisible; but the kingdom of “the 
Son of man” is always represented as visible. 
Matt. 16:28; 2 Pet. 1:16-18. 

Much stress is placed by some on the state¬ 
ment “The kingdom of God is within you”. 
Do you suppose, reader, that Jesus said to 
those carping Pharisees, “The kingdom of God 
is within yen”? It certainly was not. What 
He said, in substance, was, “Here am I, the 


404 Postm’llennialism and The Higher Critics 

King, with the light and life of the kingdom, 
with the power and glory of the resurrection, 
in me; and yet you know Me not, you recog¬ 
nize not the kingdom, nor Me, the King, though 
I am here in your midst.” Every Christian 
knows full well that Christ, our divine Lord, 
within whom is the power of an endless life, a- 
fcides in his heart, but not in the hearts of Phar¬ 
isees and other sinners. The kingdom of the 
Son of man is always visible, and when it 
merges into the kingdom of God at our Lord’s 
return “they shall see the kingdom of God”, 
though as yet “it cometh not with observa¬ 
tion”. (Mark 9:1; Luke 9 : 27 ) The true Chris¬ 
tian is now in the invisible kingdom. But we 
may also recall Paul’s word, “When he 
(Jesus) shall be manifested, then shall ye also 
be manifested with him in glory”. (Col. 3:4). 

That the kingdom of God under Jesus, Son 
of man, will be seen on earth in due course of 
time is asserted in many scriptures, some of 
which we append. “Behold, a king shall reign 
in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judg¬ 
ment.’ (Isa. 32:1). “Behold the days come, 
saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a 
righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and 
prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice 
in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, 
and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name 
whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR 
RIGHTEOUSNESS!” ( T er. 23:3-7) 


405 


He Came Again 

Here is a king on the earth, over Judah and 
Israel, on the throne of David, reigning in pow¬ 
er, ruling in righteousness. We had as well 
deny the visibility of David on his throne as of 
David’s greater Son on His throne. “When the 
Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the 
holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the 
throne of his glory, and before him shall be ga¬ 
thered all nations,” (Matt. 25:31). What a 
scene! But I am asked to believe that this is 
invisible, an immaterial assemblage of ghosts. 
How preposterous! Jesus used the expression, 

“Then shall they see the Son of man coming”, 
very many times in the New Testament. Did 
He speak the truth? Must we believe Him? Or 
must we seek some method of evading His state¬ 
ment? Our friend Goff says, “The coming of 
the kingdom was to fea without observation”. 
But Jesus did not so speak. He used no future 
tense here. Our Lord spoke in the present 
tense; whereas, pointing to the future, He said 

“Then shall they sea the Son of man coming in 
his kingdom”. Mr. Goff says, “If the writer 
could have found but one passage of Scripture 
that definitely, positively, asserted a visible re¬ 
turn of the Lord, this book would not have been 
written”. (p.6l). This is a remarkable utter¬ 
ance, from a man with a New Testament in his 
home, I refer the gentleman to Revelation 1:7. 
But lo, he grapples with this in the same cum¬ 
bersome way as with others, making it to say, 


406 Postmillenmallsm and The Higher Critics 

'‘He cometh with clouds and every eye (figura¬ 
tive for person) shall have knowledge of or 
perceive him spiritually”. 

He translates Matthew 26:64, "Henceforth 
ye shall have knowledge of (optomai) the Son 
of man sitting on the right hand of power (con¬ 
tinued action).” One would think this was 
from Mark Twain or some other humorist. He 
makes a joke apparently of our Lord’s solemn 
declaration. 

If this be sensible translation or interpreta¬ 
tion then Christ cannot be perceived spiritual¬ 
ly until His coming in the clouds; hence, no 
one may know Him as Lord and Redeemer un¬ 
til that auspicious hour. As to this Greek word 
“optomai” it means "to see, to view, to be¬ 
hold;” From it come our words "optic”, "op¬ 
tical,” etc., defined in part "of, connected 
with, or pertaining to the eye, or vision.” And 
vet in the face of the lexicographers, this kind 
of stuff is lauded to the skies by College Pres¬ 
idents, Professors, D. D’s and other" church 
dignitaries! 

Jesus said that certain ones should "See the 
Son of man”, pointing as we have shown to 
His transfiguration. Peter testifies in after years 
to the truth of this statement and said of him- 
self and his companions, "We were eye witness¬ 
es of his majesty.” Not only did they see Him, 
out they saw Moses, and Elijah; they saw the 
bright cloud that overshadowed them, and they 


407 


He Came Again 

saw all these things, and they witnessed, and 
doubtless heard, a conversation that was held 
between Jesus and Moses and Elijah. They 
heard also the voice from heaven proclaiming 
Jesus the well beloved Son. 

On another page Mr. Goff says concerning 
the binding of Satan (Rev. 20). “The Chris¬ 
tian is given power over Satan so as to live 
right, if he will. This is a binding of Satan in 
accord with other representations in the scrip¬ 
tures.” (p.64). And I am asked to believe 
ation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee 
from the wrath to come? (Matt 3:7). It was 
that this spiritual victory is the binding of Satan 
for a thousand years. If so, what happens after 
this thousand years? Will men have no power 
to live right, no victory over sin, then ? 

He teaches that Jesus returned in A. D. 70. 
This he here interprets as being spiritual, name¬ 
ly in a “power to live right. Ah! then man had 
no such vision, that is “power to live right,” 
prior to A. D. 70. Furthermore, the millen¬ 
nium was for but 1000 years. Therefore, when 
this period was completed, viz, in 1070, A. D., 
the vision ceased and hence the power to live 
right came to an end. So no one has enjoyed 
this victory over sin since 1070 A. D.!!! 

A remarkable species of interpretation is 
shown in this much-lauded book. Speaking of 
the “end” mentioned in Matthew (24:3,13,14) 
“then shall the end come”, Mr. Goff says, “All 


408 Pcstmilienniaiism a nd The Higher Critics 

of which refers to the time before that genera¬ 
tion then living should pass away; and writers 
of the New Testament, heretofore mentioned, 
including Paul himself, used the same expres¬ 
sion to designate the end of the Jewish age at 
which time the coming (parousia) was to take 
place.” Then he directly couples up with this the 
statement of Paul. “Afterwards they that are 
Christ’s at his coming, then cometh the end”. 
(1 Cor. 15:23,24). (p.66). In ending his quo¬ 
tation at this place our friend shows his one-sid¬ 
edness. He has terminated his quotation in the 
middle of the verse, where the King James has 
only a comma. We give the words immediately 
following, “When he shall have delivered up the 
kingdom to God, even the Father; when he 
shall have put down all rule and authority and 
power. For he must reign, till he hath put all 
enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall 
be destroyed is death”. 

And I am asked to believe that all these things 
were fulfilled, and this “end” came to the earth 
about A. D. 70. Must I be silent and tolerant 
when men thus mutilate the Word of God, and 
when big preachers and seminarians laud and 
boost the circulation of such stuff? And all 
this is done in an effort to becloud the issue com 
cerning “the blessed hope” of our Lord’s 
“glorious appearing”. 

I have perhaps given more attention to this 
little book than it deserves; but I am not merely 


He Cvme Again 


409 


answering Mr. Goff; rather, I am rebuking the 
shallow ecclesiastical gullibility of men with 
high sounding titles and high churchly places 
who have given their endorsement to this 
twaddle. The sum of our objections to Mr. 
Goff’s book may be briefly expressed as 
follows: 

According to his teachings, the prophetic 
“end” occurred in A. D. 70. Jesus said that 
wars would continue to the end; why then did 
they not stop after A. D. 70? We vet have wars 
in abundance, and this proves that the “end” 
was not reached at the time Mr. Goff mention¬ 
ed, unless wars continue beyond “the end”. 

The Master also told the apostles that they 
should suffer persecutions, that iniquity should 
abound, and that the love of many would wax 
cold, but added, “He that shall endure unto the 
end, the same shall be saved”. Now if the end 
occurred in A.D.70, then all the evils here fore¬ 
told terminated at that period, and only those 
who endured till that date should be saved. 

Jesus said the greatest of all tribulations 
would “immediately” precede His second com¬ 
ing. Some have tried to find this in the destruc¬ 
tion of Jerusalem. But this destruction of a city 
could not be compared to many evils that have 
afflicted the world since that time; notably, the 
late terrific war, and the famines that are even 
now scourging the nations. 


410 Postmsllennialism and The Higher Cr itics 

As to the visibility of Jesus at His return, 
we challenge any one to show a single passage 
which clearly refers to His second advent, and 
does not say, or at least imply, that He will 
be “seen”. 

His “elect” is to be gathered from the ends 
of the earth. (Matt 24:31). Whether this re¬ 
fers to the gathering of the Jews or of the 
Church, men might debate; but in either case, 
it v/as not fulfilled in A. D. 70. That is when 
the Jews were scattered, rather than gathered, 
and since then, the Church likewise has been go¬ 
ing on its mission into all nations. So the ga¬ 
thering of the elect did not occur in the year 70. 

At His second coming His faithful are to be 
called up to meet Him in the air, being caught 
away from their bed-fellows, their fellow-plow¬ 
men, and their partners in the grinding at the 
mill. (Matt 24:40,41). When did such a 
thing as this happen, even before or after A. D. 
70? Is such thing on record, in literature, 
either sacred or profane? 

That there 'should ibe great earthquakes, 
.famines, pestilences and apostacies was defi¬ 
nitely announced. They were to antedate His re¬ 
turn. Now if He did return in A. D. 70, the 
period of these things terminated at that time, 
and we are left no grounds for expecting them 
in subsequent years. But they are continuing 
to the present. 


411 


He Came Again 

Jerusalem till the completion of the Gentile 
times. Now any man with the slightest know¬ 
ledge of history, knows that the treading-down 
cf Jerusalem and the oppression of the Jews 
has continued until our day. It is barely five 
years since the armies of Great Britain under 
Gen. Allenby drove the Turkish oppressors out 
cf Jerusalem, Dec. 1917. Jesus said that His 
coming in the clouds should follow shortly up¬ 
on the driving out of the oppressor from the 
ancient city. Luke 21:24-27). He also declares 
that His kingdom shall then presently be set 
up. (verse 31). 

Mr. Goff and other writers, insist that Jesus 
and His apostles left the impression that He 
would return in kingly power very shortly af¬ 
ter His going. I dispute this. On the other 
hand, in the parable of the talents, Jesus said 
“After a Long Time the Lord of those servants 
cometh”. At another time He said to the Jews, 
“Your house is left unto you desolate. Ye shall 
not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed 
is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” 
(Matt 23 :38,39). He here uses the word “see” 
with which Mr. Goff so loves to juggle. They 
will see Him, but not till the day when they ac¬ 
cept Him, and say, “Blessed is He that cometh.” 

They have not so seen Him thus far; but some 
day they shall see Him, namely, at His glori¬ 
ous second coming. We know, therefore, that 


412 PosimillcsiniaHsm and The Higher Critics 

He did not ccme in such a way as to be “seen” 
in A. D. 70, or at any other past date. 

With the apostles, the Master would not 
even discuss “the time”. He simply bade them 
go forth and preach His gospel, saying that “the 
time“ of his coming and the establishment of 
His kingdom was not for them to know, but 
was one of the secrets of the Father. (Acts 1: 
6,7). He did not, as some assert, repudiate 
the fact of His return, but simply insisted that 
they should leave the date thereof with the Fa¬ 
ther. 

One of the Master’s parables was spoken 
purposely to correct the false expectation of 
His immediate return, 2 viz., Luke 19:11-27. 
Here Jesus as a nobleman goes into a far 
country (heaven) to receive for himself a 
kingdom. 

On His return He takes charge of the land as 
King and appoints His servants as rulers over 
the cities. We hardly think that Mr. Goff would 
assert that Jesus has been running the govern¬ 
ments of the world for the past eighteen centur¬ 
ies. Not many of the rulers of the cities, states 
of nations, have indicated by their manner of 
rulership that they were under His guiding hand. 
If He has been running the world and appoint¬ 
ing its rulers from among His own faithful and 
tried “servants”, for the past thousand years, 
then I submit that they have made a sorry mess 
of it. 


He C&me Again 


413 


On Mr. Goff’s theory that our Lord return¬ 
ed and took charge of the world before the 
close of the first century, Jesus is responsible 
for the persecution of His saints, the burning, 
beheading and disemboweling of His holy mar¬ 
tyrs. Of course He is responsible, according 
to this theory, since it was done under His 
own Kingly administration. To charge the 
“Son of man”, “Son of God”, with the 
administration as personal King and Ruler 
of earth’s wicked and dissolute nations for the 
past eighteen hundred years, well-nigh borders 
on blasphemy. What the King who rules the 
nation, who has the appointment of its mayors 
and judges and other high officials, allows to 
be done, is really and truly chargeable to him. 
Paul’s solution of the matter which attributes 
these criminal and bloody periods in human 
history to Satan, “god of this age”, is far bet¬ 
ter than Goff’s. 

Paul shows that “the man of sin”, was the 
product of a long-drawn-out apostacy, which 
was beginning in his own day. There is nothing 
to indicate that this could be accomplished in 
a very brief time. There was a restraining force 
that hindered the man of sin coming into power, 
so that he could not appear upon the scene 
until the overthrow of the hinderer. Who is 
“the man of Sin”? 

The Pope of Rome. Who then is the hin¬ 
derer? The Emperor of the old Roman Em- 


414 PostmUlenniaiism and The Higher Critics 

pire. The Pope could not come into world 
power and become King in Rome so long as 
the emperor remained at the head of the gov¬ 
ernment. After the fall of the empire, and the 
overthrow of the emperor, there was no one 
who could prevent the development of the pa¬ 
pacy. Hence, no longer restrained, he rapid¬ 
ly came into power, and was soon crowned in 
the hearts of millions of dupes as the vicegerent 
of Christ. There, sitting in the temple of God, 
the center of things religious, he is trusted in, 
obeyed and looked upon as another God upon 
earth; whereas, he is the greatest blasphemer 
of the ages. Do not worry yourself, reader, 
about a coming Antichrist. He has been crown¬ 
ed on the bank of the Tiber as another Christ 
upon earth, for weary centuries; his history is 
red with the blood of martyrs; it reeks with mor¬ 
al rottenness, and is covered over with a pall 
of spiritual darkness, that makes the center of 
his history to be well known as the “Dark 
Ages”. 

As he had a gradual rise, through a deepen¬ 
ing apostasy, so he has a gradual decay. It is 
called by Paul a consumption through the 
breath of the Lord’s mouth. This has been go¬ 
ing on since the days of Luther. Much inroad 
has been made; still his power seems unabated. 
Thank God, he shall be “destroyed by the 
brightness” of our Lord’s appearing. Mr. 
Goff’s ridiculous ruminations make a jumble 


415 


He Came Again 

of all history, they eviscerate all prophecy, and 
leave us without any chart of the ages, be¬ 
yond his fatal period, A. D. 70. 

On other pages we have a discussion of the 
“kingdom” which will of itself show the ab- 
suridity of the teaching we here combat. With 
a few other points we will dismiss his case. 

Whatever may be meant by the milllennium, 
it is definitely stated that the risen martyrs are 
to reign with Christ. Who were they? And in 
what sense, did they reign after the year A. D. 
70? It s clear that most of the martyrs of 
Christ have suffered martyrdom since the first 
century. Very few, comparatively, had paid 
the price of their devotion to Jesus prior to the 
date set by Mr. Goff, for the time of “the end”. 
Was their rule seen, or felt, or known after this 
date? Have there not been literally millions 
of martyrs since then? What has become of 
them? But bear in mind that very few had been 
martyred for faith in Jesus before A. D. 70. 

If the millennium began by the return of Je- 
•sus and the raising and crowning of the martyrs 
in A. D. 70, then in what sense do we find the 
raising of “the rest of the dead” at the close 
of the thousand years? Beginning the millen¬ 
nium at the period he indicates, it was slated to 
close within one thousand years, that is, about 
A. D. 1070, at which time the rest of the dead 
were to be raised, to stand ebfore the great 
white throne and receive their sentence. Then, 


416 Postmillenialism and Ths Higher Critics 

also, Satan was to be cast into the lake of fire, 
were to be raised, to stand before the great 
anymore. Consequently, if Mr. Goff is correct, 
death itself ended in A. D. 1070, since which 
time there have been no sinners on earth, 
no Devil, and no death. Wnat a lovely tme we 
have had for the past eight or nine centuries! 
Death and tears have been abolished since the 
dawning of that beautiful period. Of course, 
we did not realize all this until our good friend 
came upon the scene and told us!!!! 

In a number of scriptures we learn that on 
the return of Jesus, the Jev/s will accept Him 
and prove to be faithful servants and witnesses. 
Jeremiah says, ‘in His days Judah shall be sav¬ 
ed, and Israel shall dwell safely.” (23:5,6). 
Mr. Goff’s theory is that all this has been ful- 
fulled since A. D. 70. I am wondering how it 
happened and the world never found it out. 

But I need not follow this jumble of contra¬ 
dictory stuff any longer. It has no warrant in 
scripture, is absolutely untrue to history, and 
renders prophecy a mere scrap-heap of unin¬ 
telligible and unbelievable nonsense. If my 
good friend will do justice to Christ and the Bi¬ 
ble, he will destroy the plates and cease the 
publication of this fallacious and hurtful book. 

L. L. P. 


POINTED PARAGRAPHS ON POSTMILLEN- 

NIALISM 

By Andrew Johnson 


The Bible teaches the Second coming of 
Christ and the millennium. Those who be¬ 
lieve that Christ will come before the millen¬ 
nium are premillennialists. Those who believe 
that Christ will come after the millennium 
are postmillennialists. 


Dr- Shailer Mathews says: “Many premil- 
lenarians therefore thank God that the world 
is growing worse” (pamphlet). We challenge 
Dr. Mathews to produce the evidence. 

It is one thing to thank God that the world 
is growing worse and it is quite another thing 
to thank God despite the fact that the world 
is growing worse. We can not say that Paul 
thanked God that the Romans were sinners. 
(Rom 6:17) “God be thanked that (tho) ye 
were the servants of sin, but (yet) ye have 
obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine 
which was delivered you”. But if one were 
biased and prejudiced against Paul he could 
find in the foregoing verse a pretext for criti¬ 
cism. 


Habakkuk did not thank God that the fig 
tree had not blossomed, that there was no 
fruit in the vine, that the labor of the olive had 





418 Posfmiilennialism and The Higher Critics 

failed, that the flock had been cut off from 
the field, that there was no herd in the stall. 
He rejoiced in the Lord despite the fact that 
such conditions existed. (Hab. 3:17,18). 
A critic could very easily say that Habakkuk 
was thanking God for the famine. 


Prof. J. H. Snowden makes a similar charge. 
He accredits the premillennialists as saying, the 
“world is growing worse, thank the Lord for 
it”. We demand the proof. No responsible, 
representative premlllennialist is guilty of the 
alleged statement. 


The postmillennialists misconstrue, misinter¬ 
pret, misunderstand and misrepresent the pre- 
millennial position. They can offer no real ar- 
. gument against pure premillennialism. 


Prof. Rail, commenting on Dr. Torrey’s 
reply to Shailer Mathews pamphlet says: 
“Dean Mathews’ pamphlet is an incisive dis¬ 
cussion of ideals; Dr. Torrey deals largely in 
personal abuse” (Premillennialism P. 168). 


Will Prof. Rail, please tell us, what kind 
of an ideal the Dean was discussing when he 
falsely accused the premillennialists of thank¬ 
ing God that the world was growing worse? 


Dean Mathews makes the charge that pre- 







Pointed Paragraphs on Posteillennialism 419 

millennialists are opposed to modern science 
and education (pamphlet pp. 13,15,16) “Such 
an attack”, he declares “is demanded by the 
central principle of premillenarianism”. He 
characterizes the premillenarian as, “A man 
cut loose from the modern world, an enemy of 
science”. Speaking of Advanced Thought, he 
says: “It has never demanded that the Chris¬ 
tian should give up intelligence and education 
in order to live a life of faith”. He adds: “This 
is precisely what the premillenarian does”. 


Dean Mathews is mistaken. He unhappi¬ 
ly identifies Darwinism with science; but 
science is one thing and Darwinism is another. 
The premillenarian opposes Darwinism, but he 
does not oppose science. Science is certified 
and classified knowledge—demonstrated facts. 
Darwinism is an unproved, undemonstrated 
theory. A man can be a true friend to science 
and at the same time a sworn enemy to Dar¬ 
winism. 


It is charged by Dr. Daniel Steele, Dr. Geo. 
W. Wilson, Dr. A. M. Hills as well as 
Prof. J. H. Snowden and Prof. H. F. Rail 
that premillennialisis dishonor the Holy Spirit 
and discredit the present gospel agencies by 
teaching that the world will not be converted 
in this dispensation. 




420 Posbrnillennialism and The Higher Critics 


We reply that this is a non sequitur. It does 
not follow. The Bible does not teach that 
the entire world will be converted during the 
present dispensation. Does the Bible on this 
account dishonor the Holy Spirit and discre¬ 
dit the gospel? 


The answer to this charge is found in the 
free moral agency of man. The gospel is 
adequate and the Holy Spirit is able but man 
is free to accept or to reject. Salvation is 
therefore conditional. The gospel is not a 
failure, but man is a failure. Let us put the 
blame where it belongs. The gospel is the pow¬ 
er of God unto salvation to every one that 
believeth (Rom 1:16). He that believeth not 
shall be damned. 


Prof. J. H. Snowden says that the premil- 
lennialists preach the gospel in the missionary 
fields, not to get people saved, but merely as 
a witness. 

This is a bald misrepresentation. They do 
preach the gospel to get people saved. The 
gospel they preach, according to the Script¬ 
ure, is a savor of life unto life or a savor of 
death unto death. They preach the gospel 
as a witness against those who reject it. Christ 
declared that when the gospel of the kingdom 
is preached in all the world as a witness unto 





Feinted Paragraphs on PostmiHennialism 421 

all nations, then shall the end come. (Matt. 24: 
14 ). 


This clear statement of the Master greatly 
militates against the postmillennial view that all 
the world must be saved before the time of the 
second advent. 


It is not the divine will in eternity, but the 
human will in time that settles the destiny of the 
soul. 


God is able, willing and ready to save all, 
but all are not willing and ready to be saved. 


God is not to blame for it, even if the world 
is growing worse. 


Prof. Rail delivers a false accusation against 
premillennialism in the following remarks: “It 
rests back finally upon an ultra-Calvanistic 
conception of the divine sovereignty. The 
world is evil and is growing worse because God 
has determined this as His plan” (Premillen¬ 
nialism P 112). It seems to be the plan of the 
postmillennialists to prejudice the minds of 
the people against the doctrine of premillen¬ 
nialism. Foreknowledge certifies, but does not 
necessitate. God foreknows, but does not fore¬ 
ordain evil. 







422 PostmHlennialism and The Higher Critics 

This same Professor Rail says that the ideas 
of the resurrection, judgment, heaven and hell 
are not in the Old Testament. Let us give the 
exact quotaton: “There are to be resurrec¬ 
tion and judgment, heaven and hell. These 
ideas which are lacking in the Old Testament 
show the influence of the East, and especially 
of Persia”. (New Testament History p 24) 


He states in the same book: “Two points 
should be made clear. One is that the Virgin 
birth was evidently not essential for the faith 
of the early churches”, (p. 35) 


Dean Mathews says: “The premilllenarian 
views were shaped up by non-christian Jews, 
who believed that the earth was flat, who never 
dreamed of the circulation of the blood, who 
thought that the spirits of people when they 
died went into a cavern under the ground”, 
(pamphlet p 14). They were shaped up by 
the inspired prophets and apostles. All the 
postmillennialism in the world cannot put them 
out of shape. 


Prof. Rail and Dean Mathews do not enter¬ 
tain anything like evangelical viev/s of the Old 
Testament. How different the views of that 
great conservative scholar, Dr. Henry Green 
of Princeton, who said: “It cannot be divorced 
from the New Testament without serious injury 





Pointed Paragraphs on Postmil'ennialssm 423 

to the latter. The New Testament is ibased up¬ 
on the Old. The facts recorded in the Old Test¬ 
ament and the revelations therein made are as¬ 
sumed in the New as the groundwork upon 
which its own teachings rest. The language of 
the New Testament is shaped by the institu¬ 
tions of the Old, and its most advanced doc¬ 
trines find there their root.” 


“All revealed truth is also inspired truth, 
but not all inspired truth is necessarily reveal¬ 
ed truth.” 


Dr. Wilbur F. Crafts claims that there are 
540 references to Moses in the Pentateuch. Six¬ 
ty in Deuteronomy, one hundred and eighty in 
Numbers, sixty in Leviticus, and two hundred 
and forty in Exodus. 


Christ put his imprimatur upon the Old Test¬ 
ament. He quoted principles and precepts of 
the Old Testament, as a lawyer or officer of 
to-day would quote unquestioned law. 


Prof. Rail contends that Jesus set scripture 
against scripture, that he disregarded ceremo¬ 
nial law; that he set aside entire sections of the 
law which the people regarded as holy and un¬ 
changeable. He says that Jesus “did not argue 
against the Old. He simply let it slough off”. 






424 Postmillennialism and The Higher Critics 

It is a pity that Prof. Rail does not let some 
of his German Rationalism slough off! 


Dr. Wilbur F. Crafts, on the other side of 
the question, says: “Christ condemned many 
laws of Jewish tradition. He confirmed the 
old laws of the scriptures. For instance Christ 
cut off the traditions, ‘Thou shalt hate thine 
enemy’, which had been barnacled on to the 
Old Testament law, ‘thou shalt love thy neigh¬ 
bor . ” 


The New Testament does not contradict and 
correct the Old Testament. It certifies, corrob¬ 
orates and completes the Old Testament. 


The Premillennialists do not teach that the 
Kingdom which is to jbe set up when Christ 
comes only lasts a thousand years. The mil¬ 
lennial dispensation of the Kingdom will pass 
away, but the Kingdom itself will continue. “He 
shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and 
of his Kingdom there shall be no end.” (Luke 
1: 32,33) (Dan 2:44; 7:14) 


The Greek for the expression—“in like man¬ 
ner”— in Acts 1:11-13, is hon tropon. The 
postmillennialists, Warren and Campbell, try 
to make it mean certainty instead of mode and 
manner. But Dean Alford says that it is “to 






Pointed Paragraphs on PostmilWinialism 425 

be taken in all cases literally, not as implying 
mere certainty.” 

“This same.J'esus shall so come in like man¬ 
ner (hon tropon) as ye have seen him go into 
heaven.” The real, bodily, personal, visible, 
glorious Jesus will come again accompanied 
with a cloud of white-winged Angels. 


Prof. J. H. Snowden speaks of several differ¬ 
ent comings of Christ—a spiritual, providen¬ 
tial, judicial coming. We might say that the 
preincarnate Christ of the Old Testament came 
in a spiritual, providential and judicial manner 
long before He made His first advent as the 
babe of Bethlehem. But these spiritual comings 
did not preclude or fulfill his incarnation ad¬ 
vent. 


Just so, the spiritual, providential and judi¬ 
cial visitations upon the world cannot ibe used 
to offset the biblical view that Jesus is coming 
in person with power and great glory. 


Dr. Henry C. Sheldon recommends the at¬ 
titude of calm waiting, rather than anxious ex¬ 
pectation for the second advent. But if the 
millennium is to precede the coming of Christ, 
the Christians will have to calmly wait for more 
than a thousand years, at least. We are not 
commanded to look for the millennium but to 
look for Christ, who only can inaugurate the 





426 Postoiliennialism and The Higher Critics 

millennium. We might as well think of reli¬ 
gion without the Holy Spirit, forgiveness with¬ 
out repentance, salvation without regeneration, 
as to think of the millennium without Christ. 


Prof J. H. Snowden is especially averse to 
the practice of piling up texts and picking out 
verses to prove a proposition. The early Chris¬ 
tians made numerous quotations from the 
Scriptures, prigen made 5,745; fTertullian, 
3000; Irenaeus, 737; Polycarp 36 in a single 
epistle. Origen, it is true, put too much em¬ 
phasis upon the allegorical method of interpre¬ 
tation. 

The modern postmillennialists say the day 
of prooftexts is passed. It looks rather like the 
day of unbelief has come. 


Pessimism! .Pessimism! is the cry that the 
postmillennialists raise against the premillen- 
nialists. But the premillennialists believe that 
right will prevail, that truth will triumph, that 
Christ will win. They believe that the time 
will come when righteousness shall cover the 
earth as the v/aters cover the sea. In fact they 
really believe that there will be a new heaven 
and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness 
(2 Peter 3:13). They believe that the meek 
shall inherit the earth (Matt. 5:5); that the 
time will come when wars shall be no more; 
that men shall beat their swords into plowshares 




Pointed Paragraphs on PostmiSiezmiahsm 427 

and their spears into pruning hooks, and that 
nations shall learn war no more. (Isa. 2:4) 


They believe in all the good things contem¬ 
plated by the postmillennialists, but differ in re¬ 
gard to the method and manner of the restitu¬ 
tion and consumation of all things. The post- 
millennial theory of a converted world by ex¬ 
isting agencies is a hopeless hope in view of the 
progress of the past nineteen centuries. One 
post, said Jesus could not return under 60,000 
years, for, said he, “it will take at least that 
long to get the world converted.” Is he not a 
rather pessimistic postmillennial optimist ? The 
pre. however, belives that Jesus will be here 
soon and the millennium in full bloom. L. L. P. 


To show that the postmillennialists of the 
Rail, Snowden and Mathews type have misrep¬ 
resented the premillennialists by insinuating 
that they are opposed to all social reforms, let 
us give the following quotation from “The 
Blessed Hope”, written in 190! by our collab¬ 
orator, Rev. L. L. Pickett. He says: “In the 
century just passed the Salvation Army has 
wrought marvels; many denominations of 
Christians have taken on new life, and their 
missionary, philanthropic and educational la¬ 
bors have assumed extensive proportions. In 
addition to all this, an aggressive evangelism 




428 Postmillennialism and The Higher Critics 

has sprung up, which has yielded very gracious 
results. A spirit of fraternity and denomina¬ 
tional unity of purpose has also been developed 
which is gratifying. The Bible has been trans¬ 
lated and extensively circulated in all the great 
languages and many of the dialects of earth. Re¬ 
form movements have been inugur&ied in which 
God’s people have blended their efforts to 
counteract and offset the combined forces of e- 
vil. Missionaries are speeding forth on their 
God-given errands to the ends of the earth. 

Light and knowledge are increasing. The print¬ 
ing press has been yoked up for Christ, and 
thousands of volumes and millions of pages are 
being poured forth upon the face of the earth. 
That man must be blind indeed who can see no 
occasion for thanksgiving in the face of all these 
facts”. (The Blessed Hope p.52) 


Premillennialists do not oppose social re¬ 
forms per se. They oppose the perverted no¬ 
tion of postmillennialism that social reforms 
and such like will bring the millennium. 


Dean Mathews says that in the premillenarian 
interpretation, God “in order to succeed has 
to revert to physical brutality” (pamphlet p. 
10) Prof. Rail calls it a militaristic scheme of 
salvation. Prof. A. M. Hills strongly urges the 
same objection against premillennialism. 




Pointed Paragraphs on Postmiilennialism 429 

These modern postmillennialists magnify a 
mole-hill into a mountain. They paint and 
portray premillennialism in all the colors of mil¬ 
itarism. How assiduous and insiduous are their 
endeavors to impugn the doctrine and to prej¬ 
udice the people against it. The premillennial- 
ists do not substitute the “military God of 
Judaism” for the Father of Jesus. They be¬ 
lieve that God is a God of justice as well as a 
God of love. They believe in the God of 
Kipling’s Recessional, the Lord of hosts, the 
God of the far-flung battle line. They can 
see the footprints of Diety on the hilltops of hu¬ 
man history. They can see Providence in the 
defeat of the wicked Huns under Attala in 450. 
They can see Providence in the defeat of the 
Moslems at Tours, France, 732, when Charles 
Martel beat back the enemies of Christianity 
and saved Europe from the faith and fate of the 
false prophet. They can see Providence shining 
iown on Wolfe’s army on the beetling crags and 
battlemented walls of Quebec, when the prin¬ 
ciple of an open Bible and freedom of con¬ 
science won the day for the future of America. 
They can see Providence in the defeat of the 
“invincible” Spanish Armada. They can see 
Providence with the dauntless George Dewey 
at the immortal battle of Manilla harbor. They 
can see Providence with the American Legion 
at the famous Argonne Forest, defeating Prus- 


430 Postmillemalasm and The Higher Critics 

iian autocracy under the iron-hand and leader¬ 
ship of the blood-bespattered monarchs of the 

Did world. 


They can see the divine interposition in the 
battles of the Old Testament. The stars in 
their course fought against Sisera. The Lord 
gave Gideon the victory over the Midianites. 
The angel of the Lord smote 185,000 in the 
army of Sennacherib. (2 Kings 19:35). 


Will the postmillennialists deny all these 
historical facts and contend that God has no¬ 
thing to do with the decision of battles and the 
destiny of nations? 


If Providence has taken the over-rulership of 
the military movements of the past, why should 
the premillennialists ibe condemned for declar¬ 
ing that the Same Power will be displayed in 
the great final Armegeddon battle of the ages? 


Premillennialism does not maintain that the 
Apocalyptic horses portrayed by John in the 
book of Revelation are real, literal horses. The 
postmillennialists represent or rather misrepre¬ 
sent the premillennialists as teaching that Jesus 
v/ill come forth on a real white horse and go 
forth to battle like a Wellington, Washington 
or Napoleon. . 






Pointed Paragraphs on ?o$fcrmUenniaii&m 431 

The premillennialists do not hold that every 
book, chapter, verse and word in the Bible is to 
be taken in a strictly literal sense. They realize 
and recognize that there are figures of speech, 
types and symbols in the Bible. But, judging 
from what the postmillennialists say of them, 
it might be inferred that they take the whole 
Bible from Genesis to Revelation as one long, 
literal presentation in prose. 


We must not literalize the spiritual nor spiri¬ 
tualize the literal. 


The postmillennialists are prone to spiritual¬ 
ize, allegorize and Jerusalemize away the plain 
obvious meaning of many passages of scripture 
bearing on the subject of the second advent. 

The literal is usually to be taken, according 
to the best canon of interpretation, unless it in¬ 
volves an absurdity or an impossibility. 


The postmillennialists are open to criticism 
for failing to properly distinguish the difference 
between a figure of speech and a symbol. .It 
is a violation of all laws of language to con¬ 
found a figure of speech with a symbol. “Fig¬ 
ures are used for the simple purpose of illustra¬ 
tion or ornament. Hence the agents or objects 
to which they are applied, relate to the subjects 
of the acts or qualities which they ascribe to 
them. On the other hand symbols are the rs- 





432 Postmillennialism and The Higher Critics 

presentatives of the agents, objects, qualities or 
acts, conditions, or effects of others of a differ¬ 
ent and resembling class.” 


Both the figurative and the symbolic must re¬ 
vert back to the real. In other words there 
must be a literal foundation for all figures and 

symbols. The Bible abounds in figures of 

speech—The Simile, the Metaphor, the Met- 
onomy, the Synecdoche, the Hyperbole, the A- 
postrophe, Personification, the Allegory or Par¬ 
able. Symbols are few in comparison to figures. 
We must not confound the nominatives or 
subjects of the figures <of speech with the 
affirmations themselves. There is no such 
a thing as the figure of a figure. 

Symbols are not names or predicates 

of agents, but are themselves agents, objects, 
qualities which are used as representatives of 
other agents generally of a different but resem¬ 
bling class. Thus the wild beasts of Daniel’s 
prophecy represent cruel, blood-thirsty nations. 


We can not, consistent with the laws of lan¬ 
guage, convert figures of speech into symbols. 


We are not authorized to take the promises 
made to Israel as a nation and apply them to the 
church as an institution. National promises call 
for national fulfillment; political promises re¬ 
quire political fulfillment; temporal promises 





Pointed Paragraphs on PostmiUennialism 433 

require temporal fulfillment—and spiritual 
promises demand spiritual fulfillment. 

The postmillennialists inconsistently contend 
that the national, political and temporal prom¬ 
ises made to Israel as a people have their spirit¬ 
ual fulfillment in the church as an institution. 
This is confusion worse confounded. It is a reg¬ 
ular Babel of confusion. A temporal promise 
to the Jews fulfilled with a spiritual blessing to 
the Gentiles! No wonder postmillennialism is 
twisted and perverted in its views! If we call 
the church the Spiritual Zion—the true spiri¬ 
tual Israel, it is only' the spiritual promises that 
we can claim,apply and appropriate. The Chris¬ 
tian is a Jew inwardly, circumcision is in the 
heart (Rom. 2:28,29). He is heir to the spirit¬ 
ual promises made to Abraham. (Luke 1:73, 
74; Gal. 3: 28,29). 


“The church is one and the same throughout all 
time, subject only to those external changes in¬ 
cident to her onward progress thro succesive 
dispensations.” The old Jewish church, as some 
are pleased to call it, was not blotted out and a 
iew Chiistian church organized to take its place. 
Cod took the Kingdom (church in this instance) 
from the Jews and gave it to the Gentiles (Matt 
21:43). It was not a new church, but the old 
church under a new dispensation. (Rom 11: 
17). Christ was a Son over the same house 



434 Postmllenmaliam and The Higher Critics 

(church) in which Moses was a servant. (Heb. 
3: 5,6). 


The spiritual promises made to the Jews in 
the Old Testament, also apply to the church in 
the New Testament under the Christian dispen¬ 
sation, since the church, in its perpetuity and 
continuity, is essentially one. Spiritual bless¬ 
ing's transcend all racial and national boundary 
lines and are universal in their character. “The 
promise is unto you, and to your children, and 
to all that are afar off, even as many as the 
Lord our God shall call”. (Acts 2:39). 

A literal promise of a temporal blessing to 
a Jew cannot be converted into a spiritual bless¬ 
ing to a Gentile. This woulld rob Peter to pay 
Paul.. 

“Wilt thou at this time restore again the king¬ 
dom to Israel”? (Acts 1:6). Jesus, in answer¬ 
ing this question, did not tell the disciples that 
the kingdom (theocratic kingdom) would never 
be restored to Israel but said unto them—“It is 
not for you to know the times or the seasons, 
which the Father hath put in his own power”. 


It is remarkable and almost amusing to note 
how the postmillennialists, with parrot-like 
repetition, declare that the idea of the millen¬ 
nium is derived from the single verse of a sin¬ 
gle book of the Bible—(Rev. 20:4). Even so 
careful and conservative a scholar as Dr. Henry 




Pointed Paragraphs on Postmiliennialism 435 

C. Sheldon is among the number. He says:- 
**The biblical basis for affirming so much as 
the idea of a thousand years reign is exceed¬ 
ingly scanty. Only the book most prodigal of 
poetical symbolism in the 'whole canon of 
Scripture broaches the idea, and this one book 
contains only a single brief passage that carries 
any suggestion of a millennium. (Recent Ad¬ 
ventism pp. 13 8-139). 


It may be said in reply that the prernillen- 
nialists are not shut up to this ‘'single verse 
in a single book”. The term thousand years is 
used in Psalms 90:4 and in 2 Peter 3 :8. So, we 
are not confined to the Apocalypse for the bare 
term,. Millennial conditions are mentioned in 
the following verses of scripture. Isa. 32:1; 
Isa. ll;3-5; Isa. 65: 17-25; Dan. 7: 2 1-25: 
Matt 19:28; Luke 19: 17-19; Luke 22: 29, 30; 

I Cor. 4:45; I Cor 6: 2,3; I Peter 5:4; Rev. 2: 
26,2 7; Rev. 3:21; Rev. 5:10; Acts 3: 19-21. 
Now what becomes of the oft-repeated postmil- 
lennial statement that the idea of the millen¬ 
nial reign on earth is founded upon a “single 
verse in a single ibook?” It goes glimmering 
to the limbo of exploded theories! 


Prof. Rail thinks it is a serious waste of time 
to read the scriptural verses describing the mil¬ 
lennial state. (Premillennialism p. 141) No, 




436 Pcstmiilenialism and The Higher Critics 

it would not be a waste of Rail’s time, but a 

waste of his thunder! 


Prof. Rail complains that the typical premil- 
lennial evangelist (Billy Sunday for instance) 
sends Darwin and Huxley to hell because they 
taught evolution (Premillennialism p 168). 
Will Prof. Rail send Darwin and Huxley to 
heaven because they taught evoluton? Evo¬ 
lution or no evolution, a man must be born 
again in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. 
(John 3:3-5). Darwin and Huxley did not pro¬ 
fess to be real Christians in the true sense of 
the word. If Prof. Rail wants to preach them 
into heaven he is welcome to do so, but can he 
guarantee them safety in that day? 


Dr. Geo P. Mains makes mention of the fact 
in his book on Premillennialism that the premil- 
lennialists are receiving large sums of money 
for purposes of propaganda. This seems to be 
a source of grief to the good Doctor. He does 
not want the money to flow in that direction. 


Prof. Rail charges Dr. C. F. Wimberly as 
quoting, in “Behold the Morning”, with appar¬ 
ent satisfaction the opinion that the “entire race 
will be insane in a few centuries” (Premillen¬ 
nialism p, Hi). 





Pointed Paragraphs on Postmillennialism 437 


He affirms that the pages of premillennial 
writers are “filled with pictures of blackest 
hue”. Again he says: “One looks thru these 
pages in vain for any real recognition of the 
forces of good that are at work. The refer¬ 
ences to temperance reform, philanthropy, so¬ 
cial legislation or humanitarian movements of 
any kind are uniformly critical, depreciatory, 
or simply scornful” (p.111). 


Dr. Wimberly has seen more people convert¬ 
ed under his ministry than Prof. Rail would get 
converted in a thousand years at the rate he is 
now going. 


The Literary Digest, the Religious Press, Prof 
Rail and others have sent broadcast the state¬ 
ments of Dr. I. M. Haldeman concerning the 
awful judgments of the last day. 

They quote him as saying that Christ “will 
enunciate his claim by terror and might. He 
will write it in the blood of his foes. He comes 
like the treader of the winepress, and the grapes 
are the bodies of men. He will tread and 
trample in his fury till the blood of men shall 
fill the earth. He will tread and trample them 
beneath his accusing feet till their up-spurting 
blood shall make him crimson”. 


We admit that this is a fearful picture. But 






438 Postmiilennialism and The Higher Critics 

we have observed that the postmillennialists, 
who are so prone, to interpret the apocalyptic 
literature of the world in a figurativs sense, 
change their tactics and take Dr. Haldeman's 
language in a literal sense. Why do they not 
grant Dr. Haldeman the right and privilege of 
using rhetorical language? The Bible portrays 
the great day of the wrath of the Lamb (Rev. 
6:17) The day of the vengeance of God will 
surely come. (See Rev. 14: 18-20). Can Hald¬ 
eman beat this? 


The Apostle Paul, not I. M. Haldeman, says: 
“The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven 
with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking 
vengeance on them that know not God, and 
that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus 
Christ; who shall be punished with everlasting 
destruction from the presence of the Lord, and 
from the glory of his power”. (2 Thess. 1:7,8, 

9 ). 


John the Baptist, not I. M. Haldeman, cried 
out to the Pharisees and Sadducees: “O gener- 
Jesus, not Haldeman, who said: “Ye serpents, 
ye generation of vipers how can ye escape the 
damnation of hell”? (Matt. 23:33). 


Those postmillennialists (preterists) who' 
teach that the second coming of Christ has al¬ 
ready taken place cannot agree as to the .exact 





Pointed Paragraphs on PostmiUennialism 439 

time this event occurred. Some claim that the 
second advent occurred 1 on the day of Pente¬ 
cost. Others claim that it occurred at 
the time of the conversion of the Ro¬ 
man • Emperor, Constantine the Great, 
Others contend that Christ is com¬ 
ing all the time—in the conversion of souls and 
in his providential and judicial dealings with 
the human race. Mrs. Eddy says: “The second 
coming of Jesus is unquestionably the spiritual 
advent of the advancing idea of God as in Chris¬ 
tian Science”. Commenting on this a Christian 
Science lecturer said: “Thus we prove that 
Christian Science is the second coming of 
Christ”. 


Pastor Russell actually got over on the post- 
millennial side of the question. He claimed 
that Christ’s appearing was invisible and that 
everything connected with it was figurative, 
such as the “clouds”, the “flaming fire”, the 
“shout” the “mount of Olives”. Moreover he 
claimed that the millennium commenced in 
1874, and that Truth has been consuming anti¬ 
christ, a system, since 1879: So the postmil- 
lennialists can share the honor of Mr. Russell’s 
name and fame with the premillennialists. 


Rev. Clinton C. Bell (premillennialist) says: 
“There is not a trace of the pessimistic within 




440 Postmiliennialkm and The Higher Critics 

a million miles of this glorious hope”. (Ten 
Lessons on Our Lord’s Return) 


Is there any practical value, advantage, ben¬ 
efit or inspiration to be derived from the doc¬ 
trine of the second coming of Christ? The crit¬ 
ics concede that the Apocalyptic hope encour¬ 
aged patient endurance on the part of the per¬ 
secuted. Most of them, however, think that this 
form of hope has had its day. Prof. Rail says 
of the book of Revelation: “The book served 
its purpose in that early day of trial and has 
a value of its own”. (Premillennialism p.95) 


Prof Shirley Case claims that the Apocalyptic 
hope served its day, and is now a thing of the 
past, that it has no influence on the thinking 
men of the present day. 

The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that 
the glorious hope of the second coming of 
Christ has a very practical value and furnishes 
a great incentive not only to patience, but to— 

(1) Watchfulness (Matt 25:13); 

(2) Sobriety (i Peter 1:13); 

(3) Fidelity (Luke 19:13); 

(4) Sincerity (Phil. 1:9-10); 

(5) Mildness and moderation; (Phil. 4:5); 

(6) Purity (1 John 3:2,3); 

(7) Brotherly Love, (1 Thess. 3:12-13); 

(8) Holiness (2 Peter 3:11); 




Pointed Paragraphs on PostmMIennialism 441 

(9) Obedience (t Tim. 6:13-14); 

(10) Service, (1 Thess. 2: 19-20); 

(11) Consideration (1 Cor. 4:5); 

(12) Comfort, (1 Thess. 4: 14-18); 

(13) Appreciation of our Lord’s Supper, (1 
Cor. 11:26). 


Modern postmillennialism is a strange mix¬ 
ture. It is a compound of bald Rationalism, 
blind Optimism, Socialism, Allegorism, Uto¬ 
pianism, Romanism and Higher Criticism. 


Emphasis is not the criterion of truth. It 
is the criterion of importance or specialty. The 
Fourth Gospel emphasized spirituall life as a 
present possession. But, it did not deny the sec¬ 
ond advent of Christ, as a future hope. John 
put the emphasis upon the present in the gospel; 
He put the emphasis upon the future in the 
Apocalypse. When he emphasized the present 
he did not ignore the future; and when he em¬ 
phasized the future, he did not minimise the 
present, he was simply emphasizing one truth 
at one time, and another truth at another time. 
He did not deny and denounce the Apocalyptic 
hope, because he emphasized the present life. 

The preacher does not need to deny works when 
he preaches on faith, or faith when he preaches 
on works. A minister may preach on home 
missions one Sunday and on foreign missions the 
following Sunday without setting one form of 




442 Postmillennialiam and The Higher Critics 

missionary activity against another. John spe¬ 
cialized on present salvation in the Fourth Gos¬ 
pel and emphasized the future hope in the Apo¬ 
calypse. 

Does Christ come to judge, j or to 
reign? He comes to complete the work of 
redemption, to restore all things, to judge the 
quick and the dead, to reign, to rule and to 
fulfill. 


Prof. Case says that the idea of the millen¬ 
nial interregnum was derived from the later 
Jewish Apocalyptic speculations. The profes¬ 
sor’s calculations are in the reverse. The later 
Jewish Apocalyptic writers derived the idea of 
a millennial interregnum from the inspired pro¬ 
phets and apostles. 

Mind your own business and quit disturbing 
and distressing other people in regard to the end 
of the world and the second coming of Christ. 
This is the advice given by Prof. Snowden. 
In other words, “Let us alone”. A similar re¬ 
quest was once made by the devils, “Let us 
alone”. 


A continuation of the first probation is not a 
second probation. The probationary period of 
one’s life may overlap many dispensations. 
Those who lived in the dispensation of the Fa¬ 
ther continued to live under the dispensation of 
the Son and also under the dispensation of the 




feinted Paragraphs on PosbmUenmalism 443 

Holy Ghost. Thus the span of a single pro¬ 
bation overlapped three dispensations. This 
helps to explain the problem of millennial sal¬ 
vation. 


Even if the “Tabernacle of David” is made 
to mean the revived Church of the Old Test¬ 
ament (Acts 15:16), the throne of David 
(Luke 1:32) means the restored theocratic 
government upon the ruins of Gentile sovereign¬ 
ty. The stone-kingdom will yet smash the gold¬ 
en image of Gentile Supremacy. 


He must reign till he hath put all enemies 
under his feet, 1 Cor. 15:25 refers tc. the mil¬ 
lennial reign after the second advent, as the 
twenty-third verse of the same chapter plainly 
indicates. “Afterward they that are Christ’s at 
his coming”. The thens and whens in this con¬ 
nection cover a vast stretch of time. 


The inquiring mind of the disciple cannot be 
satisfied with the fact of Christ’s coming. It 
seeks to discover the why and the where and 
the how of his coming, even though the when 
of his coming is withheld. 


It would be strange if Jesus and the Holy 
Spirit could save men more easily, surely and 
effectively in this “evil age”, with Satan and 
sin rampant, antagonizing His gospel and all His 







444 Postawllennialkm and The Higher Critics 

work, than He can in the millennium, with the 
Devil, the Beast and the False Prophet cast out, 
and the same Spirit and the same glorious gos¬ 
pel earnestly preached. And yet this is the post- 
millennial proposition. They contend that no 
one can be saved after Jesus returns as King 
and takes over the government of the world. 
Strange, very strange. Thank God. the great¬ 
est revival of the ages will sweep the world then, 
and earth will be filled with His knowledge and 
glory as the waters cover the deep. Hallelujah! 

L. L. P. 


Harry Emerson Fosdick, Professor of Prac¬ 
tical Theology in the Union Theological Sem¬ 
inary and preacher at the First Presbyterian 
Church, New York CHy, who is now in the 
limelight as a liberalist, rationalist and modern¬ 
ist says concerning the ultimate triumph of the 
Apocalyptic hope: “It was pictured, not in 
terms of human betterment to be achieved, 
but of divine action to be awaited. The vic¬ 
tory would suddenly come like the flood in 
Noah’s day, like the lightening flashing from 
one end of the heaven to the other, like a 
thief in the night. To be sure this eager ex¬ 
pectation of a heavenly Kingdom to arrive on 
earth soon grew dim among the Christians.” 

(Christianity and Progress p. 19). Again he 
says: “Even in the Fourth Gospel one finds 



Pointed Paragraphs on PostmiUennialism 44S 

this good news that Christ has already come 
again in the hearts of his people insisted on in 
evident contrast with the Apocalyptic hope lit¬ 
erally conceived. For another thing, dramat¬ 
ic hopes of a sudden invasion of the world are 
always the offspring of desperate conditions” 
(P 20). 

On page 41 he declares: “Never in our 
outlook upon man’s earthly future can we 
go back to the endless cosmic cycles of the 
Greeks or the Apocalyptic expectations of the 
Hebrews.” 

These quotations are sufficient to show that 
Dr. Fosdick, who denies the Virgin birth, deity 
and resurrection of Jesus Christ, has fully ab¬ 
sorbed the views of modern postmillennialism. 
This confirms our statement that all destruc¬ 
tive higher critics are postmillennialists. 


THE END 


2 > 

\ 










r v 


ft o - c 

C "'V * * S’ 
* <£ 




A ; ^ v* 

, '*%k 

/ -<///// ! 

v: \° o ^. 

^ ~ r ivjJr> 

.* -0 



S’ 


*+ >• 

^ * 

^ *?’ V' ■ ■J* Q V * . 

h'-, ^ "JSSfe*- ^ *■ * * 

* ^ v \ l . , 

\ t> d> ^ o 

s s \V . , fi ?/> '* o + y * 

^ *'^mL'S ""- 

o v ‘,- >.,. ■ • . 

•t .** - '£%*&: $ * 

^ r> '. ‘ * * .A ^ " r 

^ V, , .' V °0, 

' r *, o 


< VJ 

s * * r 

\ 


«» ^ 

* .v 1 ^ 



<* 2^\a V'— 


, . s ' /\ O. ' ( 

IP A' * t 1 * * ^ 

' ** v* 

' 'K&' a' 5 * Wtv//^2- * 


%* *.9 no" x # % *>_ , 

«* x v *VW> * •*, <A* .' 

7 





V 


0 


./ ? ° 0 f 0* <•• 

* 



>. % <sr^ v ^ ,v' 

y 0 o *• * .aG <■* ■ / 

. 0 * >•-«♦••%, '* 

: w ?^ia: 

. / ^ •■; * 

’ / % t *»':\“'' i O 0 

*' ^ Y ^ 0 / ^ - N 

: ;£^ {\ %,<? 

* , ** V *^V 

<'-* ' A *3 

' • " s 4 v y. 0 

o. 


.o'* ' s 

,.»>* *' .^, 


o o x 


N> / ^ 4 ft S 5 \ - 

0 * <<>fv * 1 'X T v . ^ ^ 

< ^ A-^j, y ^ .v ^ - /v>a - 7 

° ■■.. • •-- •)! 1 ^ V 6 ^ 


* \v v vj - ,\ * ^ * 9* <r.^ // / i/ -jf ». 

«*•- * „0 

", % V> »■'*“' 

* V' ,\V * rCO^sfA r < 

- p <xr - ° v' 

z 



•*> s v 

«/ v<. * 

•i -4 -V v> 

*/V' * * ’ .**'. • 11 *« v 

^ V>A> , - . V 0 > 



t> 

o 4 * 7 *j 

> «#. 

* 

> tf , \ •>■ 

-H « v e , •'/- 

— ^ % 

^ . iB-? „ ^ :. 

b X pj j -^xj- Y 

'V , ly « >5 e» ^ oV 

^ t > ^ y o „ k * , G V r. 

^ L ® * ' O .0^ c 0 N c ft 

t. , v * 


Deacidified using the Bool< 
Neutralizing agent: Magne 

^ ^ » V\ a * x " 'O’* ^ Treatment Date: August 2C 

r > 1 s S * « , ^ ’ H 0 \V 

^ j& S-JOthC?** v PreservationTei 

\\ A WORLD LEADER IN PAPEI 

111 Thomson Pa 


y' o .\V <P- 

’< * ^ 


mi nomson rai 
Cranberry Towns 
( 724 ) 779-2111 















* ^ 

/ « 


^ r* 


V 

b o 


/ .<: 

N C 

<* X ** 

k *4 
* -f> 

•.X 


s. <^ 


■-V + *? 



, * o « x * <6 < -v 

. o *■ o b 'Cp 

“l /'V A V ^ 

V^' 


x°°<. 


o 

o .*V o WWSSf ’ 

„ * A ^ ", ‘ #V‘V A 

sS a\ X t 1 g \ y ° * x 0 

Vl^LV o°V. 

>!• 

tfr 


\ V 

’ ^ ° / 

x"0 

\ V t/J 

^ r A^‘ 

># *> v ’y, > , J <!,\r * v/ 

CL^ 

*> 

0 © 

v 
















































































